Paper No. 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2025-00853
`Patent No. 7,784,058
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq
`
`1619344368
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`Page
`MANDATORY NOTICES ....................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest ........................................................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 1
`1.
`United States Patent & Trademark Office ................................. 1
`2.
`USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board ..................................... 1
`3.
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ................. 2
`4.
`U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ............... 3
`5.
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ....... 3
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information - § 42.8(b)(3) and (4) ...................... 3
`STANDING .................................................................................................... 4
`GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ...................................................... 4
`THE ’058 PATENT ........................................................................................ 4
`A.
`Background and Specification ............................................................. 4
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”) ................................... 10
`C.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................ 10
`IV. CLAIM INTERPRETATION ...................................................................... 11
`V.
`CALLENDER RENDERS CLAIMS 1-18 OBVIOUS ................................ 12
`A.
`Callender (EX1005) ........................................................................... 12
`B.
`Claim-by-Claim Analysis ................................................................... 19
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 19
`a.
`[1PRE]: “A computing system for executing a
`plurality of software applications comprising:” ............ 19
`[1A] “a) a processor;” .................................................... 22
`[1B] ................................................................................ 22
`i.
`[1B.1] “b) an operating system having an
`operating system kernel...” .................................. 22
`
`b.
`c.
`
`1619344368
`
`– i –
`
`

`

`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`ii.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`[1B.2] “LOS kernel] having OS critical
`system elements (OSCSEs)...” ............................ 24
`[1B.3] “[OSCSEs] for running in kernel
`mode using said processor” ................................. 29
`[1C] ................................................................................ 31
`i.
`[1C.1] “c) a shared library having shared
`library critical system elements (SLCSEs)
`stored therein...” .................................................. 31
`[1C.2] “for use by the plurality of software
`applications in user mode...” ............................... 35
`[1D] ................................................................................ 39
`i.
`[1D.1] “i) wherein some of the SLCSEs
`stored in the shared library are functional
`replicas of OSCSEs and...”.................................. 39
`[1D.2] “are accessible to some of the
`plurality of software applications and...” ............ 44
`[1D.3] “when one of the SLCSEs is
`accessed by one or more of the plurality of
`software applications it forms a part of the
`one or more of the plurality of software
`applications” ........................................................ 46
`[1E] ................................................................................ 47
`i.
`[1E.1] “ii) wherein an instance of a SLCSE
`provided to at least a first of the plurality of
`software applications from the shared library
`is run in a context of said at least first of the
`plurality of software applications without
`being shared with other of the plurality of
`software applications and...” ............................... 47
`[1E.2] “where at least a second of the
`plurality of software applications running
`under the operating system have use of a
`unique instance of a corresponding critical
`system element for performing same
`function, and...” ................................................... 50
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`ii.
`
`1619344368
`
`– ii –
`
`

`

`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`g.
`
`[1F] “iii) wherein a SLCSE related to a
`predetermined function is provided to the first of
`the plurality of software applications for running a
`first instance of the SLCSE, and wherein a SLCSE
`for performing a same function is provided to the
`second of the plurality of software applications for
`running a second instance of the SLCSE
`simultaneously.” ............................................................ 52
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 54
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 56
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 57
`a.
`[4A] ................................................................................ 57
`b.
`[4B] ................................................................................ 58
`i.
`Queue Setup ........................................................ 59
`ii.
`Interrupt Setup and Event Notification ............... 62
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 64
`a.
`[5A] ................................................................................ 64
`b.
`[5B] ................................................................................ 65
`6.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 68
`7.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 70
`8.
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 71
`9.
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 71
`10. Claim 10 ................................................................................... 72
`11. Claim 11 ................................................................................... 73
`a.
`Device access ................................................................. 73
`b.
`Interrupt Delivery .......................................................... 73
`c.
`Virtual memory mapping ............................................... 74
`12. Claim 12 ................................................................................... 74
`13. Claim 13 ................................................................................... 75
`14. Claim 14 ................................................................................... 76
`15. Claim 15 ................................................................................... 77
`
`1619344368
`
`– iii –
`
`

`

`16. Claim 16 ................................................................................... 78
`17. Claim 17 ................................................................................... 78
`18. Claim 18 ................................................................................... 79
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS UNWARRANTED ................................. 80
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 81
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (E)(4) ............................ 1
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ....................................................................... 2
`VIII. CLAIM LISTING ........................................................................................... 3
`
`1619344368
`
`– iv –
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`BMW of North America, LLC v. Michigan Motor Techs., LLC,
`IPR2023-01224, Paper 15, 11 (Feb. 15, 2024) ................................................... 77
`Facebook, Inc. v. Express Mobile Inc.,
`IPR2021-01457, Paper 10 (Mar. 18, 2022) ........................................................ 78
`Ford Motor Co. v. Neo Wireless LLC,
`IPR2023-00763, Paper 28 (Mar. 22, 2024) ........................................................ 78
`Google LLC v. Security First Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2024-00215, Paper 15 (May 23, 2024) ........................................................... 8
`KSR Int’l v. Teleflex,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 22
`Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites,
`IPR2022-00679, Paper 7 (Oct. 25, 2022) ........................................................... 77
`PLR Worldwide Sales Ltd. v. Flip Phone Games, Inc.,
`IPR2024-00209, Paper 9 (May 10, 2024) ..................................................... 21, 35
`Protect Animals With Satellites LLC v. OnPoint Sys., LLC,
`IPR2021-01483, Paper 11 (Mar. 4, 2022) .......................................................... 77
`Sand Revolution II, LLC, v. Cont’l Intermodal Group–Trucking,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (June 16, 2020) ......................................................... 76
`Tesla, Inc. v. Graphite Charging Company LLC,
`IPR2024-00388, Paper 15 (Aug. 27, 2024) ........................................................ 78
`Videndum Production Sols., Inc. v. Rotolight Ltd.,
`IPR2023-01218, Paper 12 (Apr. 19, 2024) ......................................................... 79
`Volkswagen Grp. of America, Inc. v. Carucel Investments, L.P.,
`IPR2019-01105, Paper 8 (Dec. 2, 2019)............................................................. 79
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`1619344368
`
`– v –
`
`

`

`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) .................................................................................................. 1
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................. 8
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) ...................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. §103 ........................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. §282(b) ...................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) .............................................................................................. 76, 78
`35 U.S.C. §315(d) .................................................................................................... 79
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) .................................................................................................... 79
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Director’s Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials, 5 (June 21, 2022) ..... 76, 77
`
`1619344368
`
`– vi –
`
`

`

`APPENDIX LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. (“Bhattacharjee”), (EX.
`1003 from IPR2025-00489)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Samrat Bhattacharjee
`U.S. Patent No. 7,024,672 (“Callender”)
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent No. 6,263,376 (“Hatch”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,260,075 (“Cabrero”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,212,574 (“O’Rourke”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,481,706 (“Peek”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,499,966 (“Elnozahy”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0216145 (“Wong”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0065856 (“Kagan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,583,681 (“Green”)
`Excerpts from Charles Petzold, Programming Windows 95
`(Microsoft Press 1996) (“Petzold”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0066086 (“Linden”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,349,355 (“Draves”)
`Excerpts from Silberschatz et. al, Operating System Concepts
`(Wiley 6th ed. 2002) (“Silberschatz”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,451,456 (“Andjelic”)
`Chart re: ’058 Patent accompanying Plaintiff VirtaMove Corp.’s
`Supplemental Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions, in VirtaMove, Corp. v. Google LLC,
`7:24-cv-00033-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex.) (Sep. 26, 2024)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0095224 (“Braun”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,173,336 (“Stoeckl”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,016,515 (“Shaw”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,080,172 (“Schmalz”)
`Excerpts from Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary (10th ed.
`2003)
`Excerpts from Barron’s Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms
`(8th ed. 2003)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,324,450 (“Oliver”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0103455 (“Pinto”)
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`1028
`
`1619344368
`
`– vii –
`
`

`

`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`1033
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`1037
`1038
`1039
`1040
`1041
`1042
`1043
`1044
`1045
`1046
`1047
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`1055
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,526,567 (“Cobbett”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0142563 (“Fontarensky”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,284,246 (“Kemp”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,375,241 (“Walsh”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,698,015 (“Moberg”)
`Excerpts from Collin, Dictionary of Computing (Collin 4th Ed.
`2002) (“Collin”)
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (Microsoft 5th ed. 2002)
`(“Microsoft”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,526,159 (“Nickerson”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0154320 (“Calusinski”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,437,483 (“Goossen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,100,162 (“Green-162”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,453,852 (“Buddhikot”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,584,023 (“Hsu”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,144,031 (“Lin”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,792,492 (“Griffin”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0116563 (“Lever”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,594,698 (“Chow”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,216,164 (“Whitmore”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,988,271 (“Hunt”)
`Liss et. al, Efficient Exploitation of Kernel Access to Infiniband: a
`Software DSM Example, 11th Symposium on High Performance
`Interconnects, 2003 (“Liss”)
`Patel et. al., A Model of Completion Queue Mechanisms Using the
`Virtual Interface API, Proc. IEEE Int’l Conf. on Cluster Computing,
`281-282 (IEEE 2002) (“Patel”)
`Scheduling Order in VirtaMove, Corp. v. Google LLC, 7:24-cv-
`00033-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex. June 17, 2024) (ECF 34)
`Federal Court Management Statistics–Profiles, U.S. District Courts–
`Combined Civil and Criminal (September 2024)
`Google LLC’s Proposed Claim Terms for Construction, VirtaMove,
`Corp. v. Google LLC, 7:24-cv-00033-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex.) (Oct. 1,
`2024)
`Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Proposed Claim Constructions, VirtaMove,
`Corp. v. Google LLC, 7:24-cv-00033-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex.) (Oct. 1,
`2024)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,124,260 (“LaBerge”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,406,677 (“Colling”)
`
`1619344368
`
`– viii –
`
`

`

`1056
`1057
`1058
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`1062
`1063
`1064
`1065
`1066
`1067
`
`1068
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,278,969 (“Pashan”)
`Excerpts of Webster’s New World Dictionary (4th Ed. 2003)
`Joint Claim Construction Statement, VirtaMove, Corp. v. Google
`LLC, 7:24-cv-00033-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex.) (Dec. 18, 2024)
`Google’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, VirtaMove, Corp. v.
`Google LLC, 7:24-cv-00033-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex.) (Oct. 22, 2024)
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`(“Unified Reexam”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,210,124 (“Chan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,055,152 (“Ganapathy”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,419,502 (“Trammel”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0140051 (“Fujiwara”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,442,752 (“Jennings”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0225864 (“Gardiner”)
`VirtaMove’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, VirtaMove,
`Corp. v. Google LLC, 7:24-cv-00033-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex.) (Nov.
`12, 2024)
`VirtaMove’s Surreply Claim Construction Brief, VirtaMove, Corp.
`v. Google LLC, 7:24-cv-00033-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex.) (Dec. 13,
`2024)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,213,247 (“Wilner”)
`1069
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0078600 (“Nilsen”)
`1070
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0138675 (“Mann”)
`1071
`1072-1088 RESERVED
`1089
`Order Granting Defendant Google LLC’s Motion to Transfer
`Venue, VirtaMove, Corp. v. Google LLC, 7:24-cv-00033-DC-DTG
`(W.D. Tex.) (Jan. 22, 2025)
`Order Cancelling Markman Hearing, VirtaMove, Corp. v. Google
`LLC, 7:24-cv-00033-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex.) (Jan. 17, 2025)
`1091-1096 RESERVED
`1097
`U.S. Patent No. 7,424,710 (“Nelson”)
`1098-1106 RESERVED
`1107
`Plaintiff VirtaMove Corp.’s Supplemental Preliminary Disclosure of
`Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, in VirtaMove, Corp.
`v. Google LLC, 7:24-cv-00033-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex.) (Sept. 06,
`2024)
`Plaintiff VirtaMove Corp.’s Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted
`Claims and Infringement Contentions, in VirtaMove, Corp. v.
`Microsoft Corp., 7:24-cv-00338 (W.D. Tex.) (Mar. 28, 2025)
`
`1090
`
`1108
`
`1619344368
`
`– ix –
`
`

`

`MANDATORY NOTICES
`Real Party-In-Interest
`A.
`Petitioner Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft”) is the Real Party-in-Interest.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`1.
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`The application from which U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058 (“the ’058 patent”)
`
`issued claims priority to provisional application No. 60/504,213, filed September
`
`22, 2003.
`
`The following U.S. patent applications claim the benefit of priority to U.S.
`
`Patent 7,784,058:
`
`(i) U.S. Patent Application 11/432,843 (U.S. Patent No. 7,757,291), filed
`
`May 12, 2006; (ii) U.S. Patent Application 11/380,285 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,774,762), filed April 26, 2006; (iii) U.S. Patent Application 12/075,842 filed
`
`March 13, 2008.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058 is the subject of Ex Parte Reexamination No.
`
`90/019,676, requested by Unified Patents, LLC, filed on September 23, 2024.
`
`USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`2.
`Concurrently with the present petition, Petitioner is filing IPR2025-00854
`
`and IPR2025-00855, also challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058.
`
`1619344368
`
`– 1 –
`
`

`

`Petitioner is also filing IPR2025-00849, IPR2025-00850, IPR2025-00851,
`
`and IPR2025-00852 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 (“814 patent”), which
`
`is also asserted in VirtaMove, Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 7:24-cv-00338,
`
`listed below.
`
`Other proceedings filed against the ’814 or ’058 patents include:
`
`(i) International Business Machines Corp. v. VirtaMove, Corp., IPR2025-
`
`00591;
`
`(ii) International Business Machines Corp. v. VirtaMove, Corp., IPR2025-
`
`00599;
`
`(iii) Google LLC v. VirtaMove, Corp., IPR2025-00487;
`
`(iv) Google LLC v. VirtaMove, Corp., IPR2025-00490;
`
`(v) Google LLC v. VirtaMove, Corp., IPR2025-00489;
`
`(vi) Google LLC v. VirtaMove, Corp., IPR2025-00488;
`
`(vii) Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp., IPR2025-00563;
`
`(viii) Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp., IPR2025-00566;
`
`(ix) Amazon.com, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp., IPR2025-00561.
`
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`3.
`(i) VirtaMove, Corp. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, Case No.
`
`2:24-cv-00093;
`
`1619344368
`
`– 2 –
`
`

`

`(ii) VirtaMove, Corp. v. International Business Machines Corporation, Case
`
`No. 2:24-cv-00064.
`
`U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
`4.
`(i) VirtaMove, Corp. v. Google LLC, Case No. 7:24-cv-00033;
`
`(ii) VirtaMove, Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al, Case No. 7:24-cv-00030
`
`(pending transfer to Northern District of California per Order dated February 19,
`
`2025, see Docket Entry No. 94);
`
`(iii) VirtaMove, Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 7:24-cv-00338;
`
`(iv) VirtaMove, Corp. v. Oracle Corp., Case No. 7:24-cv-00339.
`
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
`5.
`(i) Red Hat, Inc. v. VirtaMove, Corp., Case No. 5:24-cv-04740;
`
`(ii) VirtaMove, Corp. v. Google LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00860.
`
`C.
`
`Counsel and Service Information - § 42.8(b)(3) and (4)
`
`Lead Counsel
`Backup Counsel
`
`James M. Heintz, Reg. No. 41,828
`Robert Williams (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`Zachary Loney (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`Meera Midha (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`Service Information E-mail:
` DLA-MicroIPR-VirtaM@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: DLA Piper LLP (US)
`One Fountain Square
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300
`Reston, VA 20190-5602
`
`Telephone: 703 773 4000
`Facsimile: 703 773 5000
`
`– 3 –
`
`1619344368
`
`

`

`A power of attorney is submitted with the Petition. Counsel for Petitioner
`
`consents to service of all documents via electronic mail.
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the
`
`’058 patent (EX1001). This Petition is substantively identical to the Petition in
`
`IPR2025-00489, and a motion for joinder with that proceeding is being filed
`
`concurrently herewith.
`
`I.
`
`STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’058 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review of
`
`the challenged claims. 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a).
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`Claims 1-18 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103 over Callender
`
`(EX1005). Callender is prior art under (at least) pre-AIA §102(e) to the ’058
`
`patent’s earliest claimed priority date and was not of record during prosecution.
`
`III. THE ’058 PATENT
`A.
`Background and Specification
`A typical computer system may run multiple “application[s]” (or
`
`“application programs”), e.g., email or word-processing, that must share the
`
`computer system’s resources, like hardware or files. EX1001, 1:21-31; EX1035,
`
`378; EX1003 (“Bhattacharjee”), ¶31. The computer’s “operating system” (“OS”)
`
`1619344368
`
`– 4 –
`
`

`

`“traditionally...provides mechanisms to...control [the applications’] access to
`
`shared resources.” EX1001, 1:20-24. Additionally, the ’058 patent states that the
`
`OS “‘normally’ supplie[s]” “service[s] or part[s] of a service” that are “critical to
`
`the operation of a software application”; the patent calls such services, or parts
`
`thereof, “critical system elements” (“CSEs”). EX1001, 2:1, 6:6-9; Bhattacharjee,
`
`¶32. Examples of CSEs include services such as networking, file access, “memory
`
`allocation” and “device access.” EX1001, 5:38-45, 6:12-28, 9:33-35;
`
`Bhattacharjee, ¶32.
`
`CSEs are “normally” found in the OS’s “kernel.” EX1001, 5:21-23. The
`
`“kernel” is the “core” of an OS and performs tasks like “manag[ing] memory, files,
`
`and peripheral devices” (e.g., disks, network interfaces), and “allocat[ing] system
`
`resources.” EX1035, 300, 398; Callender, 1:40-43; Bhattacharjee, ¶33.
`
`Conventional computer processors typically run in a special “kernel mode” when
`
`executing the kernel; running in this mode gives the kernel unrestricted access to
`
`the computer’s resources, enabling the kernel to perform its tasks. EX1001, 6:32-
`
`36; Callender, 1:37-48; EX1003, ¶34. In contrast, when executing applications,
`
`processors typically run in “user mode,” where access to certain resources is
`
`restricted to prevent applications from interfering with each other or damaging the
`
`system—application code cannot run in kernel mode. EX1001, 6:31-36; Callender,
`
`1:32-48; Bhattacharjee, ¶35. However, applications often need to use CSEs that
`
`1619344368
`
`– 5 –
`
`

`

`are typically provided by the kernel; to access kernel services, applications
`
`typically make “system calls” to request that the OS kernel perform a needed
`
`service (like a CSE) for the application, using the processor executing in kernel
`
`mode. EX1001, 5:38-58, 6:66-7:16; Bhattacharjee, ¶¶36-37.
`
`The above-described system-call-based technique has known disadvantages,
`
`including that (i) switching processor modes takes time and thus may impact
`
`performance; and (ii) all applications must use the same version of a CSE, i.e.,
`
`whatever version the computer system’s OS kernel provides. Callender, 1:50-56;
`
`EX1001, 5:54-6:3; Bhattacharjee, ¶38. Thus, it was known to implement some
`
`CSEs in user mode instead. EX1001, 7:23-25 (’058 patent admitting this was
`
`known); Bhattacharjee, ¶39. In some known user-mode CSE implementations, the
`
`CSE was provided by a “process[]” that executed in user mode but was separate
`
`from any application that used the CSE. EX1001, 7:23-30. In other words, when a
`
`user-mode application needed a CSE, it would request that a different user-mode
`
`process, rather than the kernel, perform the CSE. Different user-mode processes
`
`provided different user-mode CSEs, or a single user-mode process provided all
`
`user-mode CSEs. EX1001, 7:23-61; Figs. 2a-2b; Bhattacharjee, ¶¶40-41. As
`
`illustrated in Fig. 2a (below), however, communication between a user-mode
`
`application needing a CSE and a user-mode process providing that CSE still passed
`
`1619344368
`
`– 6 –
`
`

`

`through the kernel—that is, the application issued a request to the kernel, which
`
`then invoked the user-mode CSE process. EX1001, 7:31-52; Bhattacharjee, ¶41.
`
`In contrast to the above-described scheme requiring communication with a
`
`separate user-mode CSE process via the kernel, the ’058 patent discloses
`
`“replicat[ing] [CSEs] in user mode” by “placing CSEs similar to those in the OS in
`
`shared libraries.” EX1001, 5:22-34; Bhattacharjee, ¶42. “The CSE library
`
`1619344368
`
`– 7 –
`
`

`

`includes replicas or substantial functional equivalents or replacements of kernel
`
`functions.” EX1001, 8:27-28. POSAs understood that a “function” is a predefined
`
`set of instructions that carry out a specific action (e.g., a CSE). Bhattacharjee,
`
`¶43; EX1007, 1:22-33. Placing a CSE in a shared library “provides a means of
`
`attaching or linking a CSE service to an application having access to the shared
`
`library.” EX1001, 5:29-31, 9:15-27; Bhattacharjee, ¶44. The “functions” in the
`
`shared CSE library “run in the context of a software application.” EX1001,
`
`5:22-25;1 see also id., 9:41-42 (“FIG. 4 shows that the invention allows for
`
`[CSEs] to exist in the same context as an application.”), FIG. 4. In other words,
`
`the user-mode application itself performs the CSE (by calling a function from the
`
`library), rather than asking another user-mode process to perform the CSE.
`
`Bhattacharjee, ¶45.
`
`1 Emphases added throughout unless otherwise indicated.
`
`1619344368
`
`– 8 –
`
`

`

`The patent refers to user-mode CSEs in a shared library as “SLCSEs,” and to
`
`CSEs in the kernel as “OS [operating system] critical system elements (OSCSEs).”
`
`EX1001, 2:7-12. The patent mentions the well-known “dynamic linked library
`
`(DLL)” as an example of a “shared library.” EX1001, 2:45-51; Bhattacharjee, ¶46.
`
`The patent contends that CSEs that “execute” “in the same context as an
`
`application” “contrast” with prior-art user-mode CSEs that were allegedly only
`
`implemented as “shared service[s].” EX1001, 1:46-54; Bhattacharjee, ¶47.
`
`However, the patent admits that “sharing of code” between applications via a user-
`
`mode shared library was “common practice.” EX1001, 3:30-33; see also
`
`EX1001, 7:3-5; EX1003, ¶47. The patent also admits that it was “typical” to
`
`provide “functions” in “libraries which applications link with.” EX1001, 6:37-45;
`
`Bhattacharjee, ¶47. Nowhere does the patent explain what is purportedly novel
`
`1619344368
`
`– 9 –
`
`

`

`about using linking and shared libraries to make CSEs available to applications.
`
`Bhattacharjee, ¶48. In fact, as demonstrated below, Callender disclosed doing just
`
`that, well before the ’058 patent’s filing.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”)
`B.
`A POSA as of the ’058 patent’s September 22, 2003 earliest claimed priority
`
`date would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer
`
`engineering, or a related field, with three years of academic and/or industry
`
`experience in the areas of “computing system[s]” and “application libraries.”
`
`EX1001, 1:15-17. More education may substitute for less experience.
`
`Bhattacharjee, ¶¶49-51.
`
`Prosecution History
`C.
`As detailed where relevant infra §V.B, the examiner rejected the originally-
`
`filed claims over Cabrero (EX1008), after which the applicants amended claim 1 to
`
`require SLCSEs to be “functional replicas of OSCSEs.” EX1002, 216-222, 235,
`
`265-266, 273, 278; Bhattacharjee, ¶¶52-53. The examiner then rejected the claims
`
`over O’Rourke (EX1009) and Peek (EX1010). EX1002, 296-297. The applicants
`
`traversed the rejection, as also detailed infra §V.B. EX1002, 323-325.
`
`Subsequently, for reasons not recorded, the examiner discussed two different
`
`references, Elnozahy (EX1011) and Wong (EX1012), in an examiner interview,
`
`and then allowed the claims without further discussing O’Rourke or Peek.
`
`1619344368
`
`– 10 –
`
`

`

`EX1002, 348-351. The allowed claims contain an examiner’s amendment to
`
`Element [1E] (see claim listing infra §VIII) to recite “at least a first” and “at least
`
`a second” of the plurality of software applications. EX1002, 350-351. The
`
`examiner also incorporated into claim 1 originally-filed dependent claim 6, which
`
`is essentially limitation [1F]’s “wherein” clause. EX1002, 350-352; infra §VIII;
`
`Bhattacharjee, ¶¶54-56.
`
`The examiner said neither Elnozahy nor Wong disclosed the amended
`
`language of claim 1. EX1002, 352-353. But neither reference explicitly discloses
`
`shared libraries or an SLCSE in a shared library, and there is no indication that the
`
`examiner considered whether these features would have been obvious.
`
`Bhattacharjee, ¶¶57-61. Furthermore, Callender was not of record.
`
`IV. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`Claim terms are construed herein using the standard used in civil actions
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §282(b), in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning
`
`as understood by POSAs and the patent’s prosecution history. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.100(b). In a concurrent district-court proceeding, the parties (Defendant
`
`“Google” and Patent Owner “VirtaMove”) have proposed constructions of various
`
`claim terms, including competing constructions for some terms and agreed
`
`constructions for others. EX1052-EX1053. As discussed further within the
`
`Ground, this Petition presents alternative mappings of the prior art under both
`
`1619344368
`
`– 11 –
`
`

`

`parties’ proposed constructions of disputed terms, thus demonstrating
`
`unpatentability regardless of which proposed construction is correct. Google LLC
`
`v. Security First Innovations, LLC, IPR2024-00215, Paper 15, 6 (May 23, 2024)
`
`(finding this approach “complies with” Rule 42.104(b)(3)).
`
`V.
`
`CALLENDER RENDERS CLAIMS 1-18 OBVIOUS
`A.
`Callender (EX1005)
`Callender discloses techniques for “a single implementation of operations
`
`that are common to both kernel mode processing and user mode processing, relative
`
`to a hardware adapter.” Callender, 2:28-31; Bhattacharjee, ¶62. An example
`
`“adapter” is a “host channel adapter (‘HCA Adapter’),” which enables
`
`communication using the well-known “InfiniBand” networking protocol.
`
`Callender, 4:51-57; Bhattacharjee, [0007]-[0008]; EX1014, 1:50-60; Bhattacharjee,
`
`¶63. Examples of “operations” that are “common” to both user- and kernel-mode
`
`processing include “operations” for “sending and receiving” information through
`
`the adapter. Callender, Abstract, 2:41-50, 3:40-4:16, 4:51-5:5, claims 4, 12, 22;
`
`Bhattacharjee, ¶64.
`
`Callender’s techniques are performed in a “computer” with a conventional
`
`“operating system.” Callender, 8:19-9:5, Fig. 4; Bhattacharjee, ¶65. Callender’s
`
`“computer” also has various hardware components, including network “adapter[s]”
`
`such as an HCA adapter. Callender, 9:22-24; Bhattacharjee, ¶66. Callender’s
`
`1619344368
`
`– 12 –
`
`

`

`Figure 1 illustrates “a hardware driver model that allows for a single
`
`implementation of common user mode and kernel mode operations.” Callender,
`
`3:39-44. A “driver” is software by which a computer interacts with a hardware
`
`device such as an adapter. EX1035, 177; Bhattacharjee, ¶67. In Callender’s
`
`model, a “user mode implementation” of an operation provides applications with
`
`“direct access to [the] adapter...without switching to kernel mode.” Callender,
`
`3:45-49. The model also comprises a “kernel mode implementation” of “all
`
`operations possible for [the] adapter,” including “operations unique to kernel
`
`mode” and operations common to both modes. Callender, 3:52-4:12. “[F]requent
`
`operations like sending and receiving information” are operations for the adapter
`
`that are “likely candidates to be included” in both user- and kernel-mode
`
`implementations. Callender, 4:4-12; Bhattacharjee, ¶68.
`
`1619344368
`
`– 13 –
`
`

`

`Figure 2A (annotated below) shows a more specific use case for the general
`
`model of Figure 1—an “example hardware driver model that allows for a single
`
`implementation of common user mode and kernel mode operations” specifically for
`
`an HCA adapter. Callender, 4:51-57. The example model includes