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. IPR2025-00855
`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
`
`1619342252
`
`

`

`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 ........................................................................................ 5
`A.
`Background and Specification ............................................................. 5
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”) ................................... 10
`C.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................ 11
`IV. CLAIM INTERPRETATION ...................................................................... 12
`V.
`GROUND 1: ELNOZAHY+DRAVES RENDERS CLAIMS 1-18
`OBVIOUS ..................................................................................................... 12
`A.
`Elnozahy (EX1006) ............................................................................ 12
`B.
`Draves (EX1017) ................................................................................ 15
`C.
`Elnozahy+Draves Combination ......................................................... 16
`D.
`Claim-by-Claim Analysis ................................................................... 18
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 18
`a.
`[1PRE]: “A computing system for executing a
`plurality of software applications comprising:” ............ 18
`[1A] “a) a processor;” .................................................... 19
`[1B] ................................................................................ 20
`
`b.
`c.
`
`1619342252
`
`– i –
`
`

`

`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`ii.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`[1B.1] “b) an operating system having an
`operating system kernel...” .................................. 20
`[1B.2] “LOS kernel] having OS critical
`system elements (OSCSEs)...” ............................ 21
`[1B.3] “[OSCSEs] for running in kernel
`mode using said processor” ................................. 24
`[1C] ................................................................................ 27
`i.
`[1C.1] “c) a shared library having shared
`library critical system elements (SLCSEs)
`stored therein...” .................................................. 27
`[1C.2] “for use by the plurality of software
`applications in user mode...” ............................... 30
`[1D] ................................................................................ 32
`i.
`[1D.1] “i) wherein some of the SLCSEs
`stored in the shared library are functional
`replicas of OSCSEs and...”.................................. 32
`[1D.2] “are accessible to some of the
`plurality of software applications and...” ............ 35
`[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” ........................................................ 36
`[1E] ................................................................................ 37
`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...” ............................... 37
`[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
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`ii.
`
`1619342252
`
`– ii –
`
`

`

`g.
`
`system element for performing same
`function, and...” ................................................... 40
`[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.” ............................................................ 42
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 44
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 46
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 46
`a.
`[4A] ................................................................................ 46
`b.
`[4B] ................................................................................ 47
`i.
`File retrieval ........................................................ 47
`ii.
`Initializing interrupt handling.............................. 50
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 52
`a.
`Initializing Communication with Network-
`Interface Drivers ............................................................ 53
`b.
`File retrieval ................................................................... 55
`c.
`Interrupt setup ................................................................ 57
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 58
`a.
`[6A] ................................................................................ 58
`i.
`File retrieval ........................................................ 58
`ii.
`Packet arrival ....................................................... 59
`[6B] ................................................................................ 59
`i.
`File retrieval ........................................................ 59
`ii.
`Packet Arrival ...................................................... 60
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 60
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 61
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 62
`– iii –
`
`b.
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`8.
`9.
`
`1619342252
`
`

`

`10. Claim 10 ................................................................................... 63
`11. Claim 11 ................................................................................... 64
`a.
`Device access ................................................................. 64
`b.
`Interrupt Delivery .......................................................... 65
`c.
`Virtual memory mapping ............................................... 65
`12. Claim 12 ................................................................................... 66
`13. Claim 13 ................................................................................... 67
`14. Claim 14 ................................................................................... 67
`15. Claim 15 ................................................................................... 68
`16. Claim 16 ................................................................................... 70
`17. Claim 17 ................................................................................... 70
`18. Claim 18 ................................................................................... 71
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS UNWARRANTED ................................. 72
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 72
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (E)(4) ............................ 1
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ....................................................................... 2
`VIII. CLAIM LISTING ........................................................................................... 3
`
`1619342252
`
`– iv –
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) ........................................................ 76
`BMW of North America, LLC v. Michigan Motor Techs., LLC,
`IPR2023-01224, Paper 15, 11 (Feb. 15, 2024) ................................................... 77
`Google LLC v. Security First Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2024-00215, Paper 15, 6 (May 23, 2024) ....................................................... 5
`Markforged Inc. v. Continuous Composites Inc.,
`IPR2022-00679, Paper 7, 32-33 (Oct. 25, 2022) ................................................ 77
`PLR Worldwide Sales Ltd. v. Flip Phone Games, Inc.,
`IPR2024-00209, Paper 9, 39 (May 10, 2024) ..................................................... 15
`Protect Animals With Satellites LLC v. OnPoint Sys., LLC,
`IPR2021-01483, Paper 11, 14-15 (Mar. 4, 2022) ............................................... 77
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’lIntermodal Group-Trucking,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24, 7 (June 16, 2020) ..................................................... 76
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) .................................................................................................. 1
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................. 5
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) ...................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) ...................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. §103 ........................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. §282(b) ...................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) .................................................................................................... 76
`
`1619342252
`
`– v –
`
`

`

`35 U.S.C. §325(d) .................................................................................................... 77
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Director’s Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials, 5 (June 21, 2022) ..... 76, 77
`
`1619342252
`
`– vi –
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`1018
`
`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 IPR2025-00490
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Samrat Bhattacharjee
`[RESERVED]
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0041118 (“Elnozahy”)
`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-966”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0216145 (“Wong”)
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`Excerpts from Charles Petzold, Programming Windows 95
`(Microsoft Press 1996) (“Petzold”)
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent No. 6,349,355 (“Draves”)
`Excerpts from Silberschatz et. al, Operating System Concepts (Wiley
`6th ed. 2002) (“Silberschatz”)
`RESERVED
`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”)
`1021
`U.S. Patent No. 6,173,336 (“Stoeckl”)
`1022
`RESERVED
`1023
`U.S. Patent No. 7,080,172 (“Schmalz”)
`1024
`1025-1031 RESERVED
`1032
`U.S. Patent No. 5,375,241 (“Walsh”)
`1033
`U.S. Patent No. 6,698,015 (“Moberg”)
`1034
`Excerpts from Collin, Dictionary of Computing (Collin 4th Ed. 2002)
`(“Collin”)
`
`1019
`1020
`
`1619342252
`
`– vii –
`
`

`

`1035
`
`1049
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (Microsoft 5th ed. 2002)
`(“Microsoft”)
`RESERVED
`1036
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0154320 (“Calusinski”)
`1037
`U.S. Patent No. 7,437,483 (“Goossen”)
`1038
`U.S. Patent No. 7,100,162 (“Green-162”)
`1039
`1040-1042 RESERVED
`1043
`U.S. Patent No. 6,792,492 (“Griffin”)
`1044
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0116563 (“Lever”)
`1045
`U.S. Patent No. 6,594,698 (“Chow”)
`1046
`U.S. Patent No. 7,216,164 (“Whitmore”)
`1047
`U.S. Patent No. 6,988,271 (“Hunt”)
`1048
`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 (June 30, 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)
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`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”)
`1061-1064 RESERVED
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`1055
`1056
`1057
`1058
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1619342252
`
`– viii –
`
`

`

`1065
`1066
`1067
`
`1068
`
`1069
`1070
`1071
`1072
`1073
`1074
`1075
`1076
`1077
`1078
`1079
`1080
`1081
`1082
`1083
`1084
`1085
`1086
`1087
`1088
`1089
`
`1090
`
`1091
`1092
`1093
`1094
`1095
`
`1096
`
`1619342252
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,442,752 (“Jennings”)
`RESERVED
`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”)
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0037337 (“Yona”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0083127 (“Agrawal”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0004834 (“Guenther”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,049,892 (“Casagrande”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0023580 (“Braud”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,917,627 (“Footer”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,361,335 (“Calanni”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0078135 (“Venkatsubra”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,594,690 (“Cantwell”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,394,547 (“Correnti”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,931,925 (“McNabb”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,966,543 (“Hartner”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,171,494 (“Karamanolis”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,029,160 (“Cabrera”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,931,501 (“Narayanaswamy”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,630,141 (“Ross”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0007488 (“Rao”)
`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)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,937,559 (“Parameswar”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,200,761 (“Freeman”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0027909 (“Brinkerhoff”)
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/504,213
`Redline Comparison between U.S. Provisional Patent Application
`No. 60/504,213 and specification of U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058
`U.S. Patent No. 6,728,839 (“Marshall”)
`– ix –
`
`

`

`1097
`1098
`1099
`1100
`1101
`1102
`1103
`1104
`1105
`1106
`1107
`
`1108
`
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent No. 5,815,701 (“Slavenburg”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,581,768 (“Garney”)
`European Patent Application EP1164480 (“Temple”)
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0129085 (“Kubala”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,874,144 (“Kush”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,630,076 (“Saulpaugh”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,983,021 (“Mitrovic”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,305,461 (“Feigenbaum”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0032821 (“Garrigues”)
`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)
`
`1619342252
`
`– x –
`
`

`

`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 IPR2025-00853
`
`and IPR2025-00854, also challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058.
`
`Petitioner is also filing IPR2025-00849, IPR2025-00850, IPR2025-00851,
`
`and IPR2025-00852 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,519,814 (“’814 patent”), which
`– 1 –
`
`1619342252
`
`

`

`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;
`
`(ii) VirtaMove, Corp. v. International Business Machines Corporation, Case
`
`No. 2:24-cv-00064.
`
`1619342252
`
`– 2 –
`
`

`

`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
`
`A power of attorney is submitted with the Petition. Counsel for Petitioner
`
`consents to service of all documents via electronic mail.
`
`1619342252
`
`– 3 –
`
`

`

`Petitioner requests inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,784,058 (“the ’058 patent,” EX1001). This Petition is
`
`substantively identical to the Petition in IPR2025-00490, 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 Elnozahy (EX1006) in view of Draves
`
`(EX1017).
`
`The ’058 patent was filed September 21, 2004, and claims priority to
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/504,213 (“’213 Provisional,” EX1094), filed
`
`September 22, 2003. However, the ’058 patent is not entitled to the ’213
`
`Provisional’s filing date because the ’213 Provisional does not provide written
`
`description support for the ’058 patent’s claims. As just one example, written
`
`description support for Element [1E.1], which recites that an SLCSE “instance” is
`
`provided to applications without being “shared” (see claim listing infra §VIII), is
`
`not in the ’213 Provisional, but was added to the specification of the ’058 patent.
`
`See EX1095 (automatically-generated redline comparison of ’213 Provisional and
`
`1619342252
`
`– 4 –
`
`

`

`’058 patent specification), 3-4 (showing addition of description of how “CSEs are
`
`not shared among applications”); EX1003 (“Bhattacharjee”), ¶¶31-35. Thus,
`
`Elnozahy is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) based on Elnozahy’s
`
`February 27, 2003 publication date. Furthermore, if the ’058 patent were entitled
`
`to the September 22, 2003 priority date, Elnozahy is prior art under (at least) pre-
`
`AIA §102(e) based on Enozahy’s August 23, 2001 filing date.
`
`Draves issued February 19, 2002 and is prior art under (at least) pre-AIA
`
`§102(b).
`
`Elnozahy’s issued patent, Elnozahy-966 (EX1011), was of record during
`
`prosecution but was not considered in combination with Draves. Bhattacharjee,
`
`¶¶36-37.
`
`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 make shared
`
`use of the computer system’s resources like hardware or files. EX1001, 1:21-31;
`
`EX1035, 378; Bhattacharjee, ¶38. The computer’s “operating system” (“OS”)
`
`“traditionally...provides mechanisms to...control [the applications’] access to
`
`shared resources.” EX1001, 1:22-24. Additionally, the ’058 patent states that the
`
`OS “‘normally’ supplie[s]” “service[s] or part[s] of a service” that are “critical to
`
`1619342252
`
`– 5 –
`
`

`

`the operation of a software application”; the patent calls such services, or parts
`
`thereof, “critical system elements” (“CSEs”). EX1001, 2:1, 6:6-9. Examples of
`
`CSEs include services such as networking, access to files, “memory allocation” and
`
`“device access.” EX1001, 5:38-45, 6:12-28, 9:33-35; Bhattacharjee, ¶39.
`
`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). EX1035, 300, 398;
`
`Bhattacharjee, ¶40. 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, which enables the kernel to
`
`perform its tasks. EX1001, 6:32-36; Draves, 1:23-47; Bhattacharjee, ¶41. In
`
`contrast, when running 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, 6:33-36; Draves, 1:23-47; Bhattacharjee, ¶42.
`
`However, applications often need to use CSEs that 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, ¶¶43-44.
`
`1619342252
`
`– 6 –
`
`

`

`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. Bhattacharjee, ¶45;
`
`EX1098, 1:29-32; EX1001, 6:31-36, 5:54-6:3. Thus, it was known to implement
`
`some CSEs in user mode instead. EX1001, 7:23-25 (’058 patent admitting this
`
`was known); Bhattacharjee, ¶46. 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.
`
`Bhattacharjee, ¶47. 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, ¶48. 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 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, ¶48.
`
`1619342252
`
`– 7 –
`
`

`

`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, ¶49. “The CSE library
`
`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,
`
`1619342252
`
`– 8 –
`
`

`

`¶50; 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, ¶51. The “functions” in the
`
`shared CSE library “can be directly called by the applications...and as such can be
`
`run in the same context as the applications.” EX1001, 8:31-33;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, ¶52.
`
`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).”
`
`1 Emphases added throughout unless otherwise indicated.
`
`1619342252
`
`– 9 –
`
`

`

`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, ¶53.
`
`The patent contends that the ability to “execute” CSEs “in the same context
`
`as an application” “contrast[s]” with prior-art user-mode CSEs that were allegedly
`
`only implemented as a “shared service.” EX1001, 1:46-54. However, the patent
`
`admits that “sharing [] code” between applications via a shared library in user
`
`mode was “common practice.” EX1001, 3:30-33; see also EX1001, 7:3-5. The
`
`patent also admits that it was “typical” to provide “functions” in “libraries which
`
`applications link with.” EX1001, 6:37-45. Nowhere does the patent explain what
`
`is purportedly novel about using linking and shared libraries to make CSEs
`
`available to applications. Bhattacharjee, ¶¶54-55. In fact, as demonstrated below,
`
`Elnozahy and Draves in combination 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, ¶¶56-58.
`
`1619342252
`
`– 10 –
`
`

`

`Prosecution History
`C.
`As detailed where relevant infra § V.D, 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, ¶¶59-60. The examiner then rejected the claims
`
`over O’Rourke (EX1009) in view of Peek (EX1010). EX1002, 296-297. The
`
`applicants traversed the rejection, as also detailed infra § V.D. EX1002, 324-325;
`
`Bhattacharjee, ¶61. Subsequently, for reasons not recorded, the examiner
`
`discussed two different references, Elnozahy-966 (EX1011) and Wong (EX1012),
`
`in an examiner interview, and then allowed the claims without further discussing
`
`O’Rourke or Peek. EX1002, 348-351; Bhattacharjee, ¶62. 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, ¶63.
`
`The examiner stated that neither Elnozahy-966 nor Wong disclosed the
`
`amended language of claim 1. EX1002, 352-353. But neither of those references
`
`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
`
`1619342252
`
`– 11 –
`
`

`

`obvious. Bhattacharjee, ¶¶64-68. There is also no evidence the examiner
`
`considered combining Elnozahy-966 with a reference like Draves (which discloses
`
`shared libraries, see infra §V.B) instead of Wong.
`
`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 related district-court proceeding, 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 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.
`
`GROUND 1: ELNOZAHY+DRAVES RENDERS CLAIMS 1-18
`OBVIOUS
`A.
`Elnozahy (EX1006)
`Elnozahy is directed to a “web server that integrates portions of operating
`
`system code to execute substantially w