Paper No. 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. AND SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________________
`
`IPR2025-00931
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,332,844
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv
`EXHIBIT LIST .......................................................................................................... v
`I.
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 1
`II.
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 5
`III.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES AND RELIEF REQUESTED ....... 5
`IV. THE ’844 PATENT ......................................................................................... 6
`A. Overview ............................................................................................... 6
`B.
`Effective Filing Date ........................................................................... 10
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 11
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11
`V.
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ART .......................................................................... 12
`A.
`Sapuntzakis (Ex.1005) ........................................................................ 14
`B.
`Birse (Ex.1006) ................................................................................... 18
`C.
`Holzmann (Ex.1007) ........................................................................... 21
`D.
`Federwisch (Ex.1008) ......................................................................... 22
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-13 ARE OBVIOUS OVER SAPUNTZAKIS
`AND HOLZMANN ....................................................................................... 23
`A. Motivation to Combine ....................................................................... 23
`B.
`Sapuntzakis and Holzmann meet all claim elements. ......................... 24
`1.
`Claims 1 and 7 ........................................................................... 24
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 33
`3.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 35
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`4.
`Claims 4 and 11 ......................................................................... 36
`Claims 5 and 12 ......................................................................... 39
`5.
`Claims 6 and 13 ......................................................................... 40
`6.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 41
`7.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 43
`8.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 44
`9.
`VIII. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 14-27 ARE OBVIOUS OVER SAPUNTZAKIS
`AND FEDERWISCH .................................................................................... 47
`A. Motivation to Combine ....................................................................... 47
`B.
`Sapuntzakis and Federwisch meet all claim elements. ....................... 48
`1.
`Claims 14, 19, and 23 ............................................................... 48
`2.
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 52
`3.
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 53
`4.
`Claims 17 and 21....................................................................... 53
`5.
`Claims 18, 22, and 27 ............................................................... 54
`6.
`Claims 20 and 24....................................................................... 54
`7.
`Claim 25 .................................................................................... 55
`8.
`Claim 26 .................................................................................... 57
`IX. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1-13 ARE OBVIOUS OVER BIRSE AND
`HOLZMANN ................................................................................................ 58
`A. Motivation to Combine ....................................................................... 58
`B.
`Birse and Holzmann meet all claim elements. .................................... 59
`1.
`Claims 1 and 7 ........................................................................... 59
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 67
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`3.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 68
`Claims 4 and 11 ......................................................................... 70
`4.
`Claims 5 and 12 ......................................................................... 72
`5.
`Claims 6 and 13 ......................................................................... 73
`6.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 73
`7.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 73
`8.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 74
`9.
`X. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 14-27 ARE OBVIOUS OVER BIRSE AND
`FEDERWISCH .............................................................................................. 74
`A. Motivation to Combine ....................................................................... 74
`B.
`Birse and Federwisch meet all claim elements. .................................. 75
`1.
`Claims 14, 19, and 23 ............................................................... 75
`2.
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 77
`3.
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 77
`4.
`Claims 17 and 21....................................................................... 77
`5.
`Claims 18, 22, and 27 ............................................................... 77
`6.
`Claims 20 and 24....................................................................... 78
`7.
`Claim 25 .................................................................................... 78
`8.
`Claim 26 .................................................................................... 78
`XI. THERE ARE NO DISCRETIONARY FACTORS FAVORING DENIAL
`OF INSTITUTION ........................................................................................ 79
`The Fintiv factors either favor institution or are neutral ..................... 79
`An analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) also favors institution ............. 80
`
`XII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 81
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. XR Commc’ns LLC,
`IPR2024-00613, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 9, 2024) ................................................... 79
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`IPR2022-01226, Paper 22 (PTAB Jan. 11, 2023) ................................................ 81
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 11
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Grp.-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB. June 16, 2020) (informative) ..................... 79
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential) ....................... 80
`Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Shell Oil Co.,
`112 F.3d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 11
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00633, Paper 11 (Aug. 14, 2015) ......................................................... 12
`Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Co.,
`642 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 12
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................................... 80
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100 ................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`1002
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844 (Application No.
`11/709,477)
`Expert Declaration of Erez Zadok, Ph.D.
`Erez Zadok, Ph.D. Curriculum Vitae
`Sapuntzakis, et al. “Optimizing the Migration of Virtual Computers,”
`Association for Computing Machinery, Special Interest Group on
`Operating Systems, Operating Systems Review, Proceedings of the 5th
`Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI),
`Volume 36, Issue S1, published December 31, 2002 (“Sapuntzakis”)
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 7,089,300B1, entitled “Method and Apparatus for
`Administering the Operating System of a Net-Booted Environment,”
`filed on October 18, 1999, and issued August 8, 2006 to Birse, et al.
`(“Birse”)
`1007 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0283597 A1, entitled
`“System and Method for Booting Multiple Servers from a Single
`Operating System Image,” filed on June 22, 2004, and published on
`December 22, 2005 (“Holzmann”)
`1008 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0182313 A1, entitled
`“System and Method for Determining Changes in Two Snapshots and
`for Transmitting Changes to Destination Snapshot,” filed on March 19,
`2002, and published on September 25, 2003 (“Federwisch”)
`File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 11/026,622 (the “’622
`Application”, now abandoned)
`File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 11/395,816 (the “’816
`Application”, now U.S. Patent No. 7,721,282)
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description of Document
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`Description of Document
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1011 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 3rd ed., 1997, excerpts (“Microsoft
`Computer Dictionary”)
`1012 Abraham Silberschatz and Peter B. Galvin, Operating Systems
`Concepts, 4th Edition, 1994, Addison-Wesley Publishing, excerpts
`(“Silberschatz”)
`File System Design for an NFS File Server Appliance, Dave Hitz et al.,
`Network Appliance, USENIX 1994 (“Hitz”)
`SnapMirror: File System Based Asynchronous Mirroring for Disaster
`Recovery, Hugo Patterson et al., Network Appliance, USENIX 2002
`(“Patterson I”)
`1015 U.S. Patent 6,668,264B1 to Patterson et al., Filed Apr. 3, 2001, Issued
`Dec. 23, 2003, titled “Resynchronization of a target volume with a
`source volume” (“Patterson II”)
`1016 U.S. Patent 7,334,095B1 to Fair et al. Filed Apr. 30, 2004 (“Fair”)
`1017
`Internet Small Computer Systems Interface (iSCSI), RFC 3720, IETF,
`April 2004, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc3720.txt.pdf
`1018 Claim Listing
`1019 Complaint, Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Southwest Airlines Co.,
`No. 7:24-cv-00277 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2024)
`1020 Complaint, Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. American Airlines, Inc.,
`No. 4:24-cv-980-ALM (E.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2024)
`1021 Claim Chart Exhibit to Complaint, Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v.
`Southwest Airlines Co., No. 7:24-cv-277 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2024)
`Screenshots From Internet Archive Related to
`www.usenix.org
`1023 Declaration of Keith D. Harden
`
`1022
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`Petitioners American Airlines, Inc. (“American”) and Southwest Airlines Co.
`
`(“Southwest”) (collectively “Petitioners”) petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of
`
`claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844 (the “’844 Patent”) owned by Intellectual
`
`Ventures II LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest Under § 42.8(b)(1)
`American is a real party in interest to this petition. American is a wholly
`
`owned subsidiary of American Airlines Group, Inc., which is not a real party in
`
`interest to this petition. No unnamed entity is funding, controlling, or otherwise has
`
`an opportunity to control or direct this petition or American’s participation in any
`
`resulting IPR.
`
`Southwest is also a real party in interest to this petition. No unnamed entity is
`
`funding, controlling, or otherwise has an opportunity to control or direct this petition
`
`or Southwest’s participation in any resulting IPR.
`
`B. Related Matters Under § 42.8(b)(2)
`To the best of Petitioners’ knowledge, the ’844 Patent has been involved in
`
`the following related matters:
`
` Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Liberty Mutual Holding Company
`
`Inc., et al., No. 23-cv-525 (E.D. Tex. filed November 15, 2023)
`
`– 1 –
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
` Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Comerica Incorporated, No. 23-
`
`cv-524 (E.D. Tex. filed November 15, 2023)
`
` Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National
`
`Association et al., No. 23-cv-523 (E.D. Tex. filed November 15, 2023)
`
` Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Com-
`
`pany, No. 25-cv-632 (N.D. Tex. filed March 15, 2025)
`
` Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. The Bank of New York Mellon Cor-
`
`poration, No. 25-cv-631 (N.D. Tex. filed March 15, 2025)
`
`The actions against Liberty, Comerica, and JP Morgan has been dismissed with
`
`prejudice.
`
` The ’844 Patent was also at issue in the following IPR proceeding:
`
` IPR2025-00202 – terminated/settled prior to institution
`
` The ’844 Patent is also asserted in the following cases:
`
` Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 24-cv-
`
`980 (E.D. Tex. filed November 2, 2024)
`
` Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Southwest Airlines, Co., No. 24-cv-
`
`277 (W.D. Tex. filed November 2, 2024)
`
`Petitioners are not aware of any other civil actions or proceedings filed in
`
`connection with the ’844 Patent.
`
`
`
`– 2 –
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel Under § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Lead Counsel
`Keith D. Harden (Reg. No. 74,472)
`kharden@munckwilson.com
`Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP
`2000 McKinney Ave., Ste. 1900
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Tel: (972) 628-3600
`Fax: (972) 628-3616
`
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`Daniel E. Venglarik (Reg. No. 39,409)
`dvenglarik@munckwilson.com
`Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP
`2000 McKinney Ave., Ste. 1900
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Tel: (972) 628-3600
`Fax: (972) 628-3616
`
`S. Wallace Dunwoody (Texas Bar No.
`24040838 - admission pro hac vice to be
`requested)
`wdunwoody@munckwilson.com
`Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP
`2000 McKinney Ave., Ste. 1900
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Tel: (972) 628-3600
`Fax: (972) 628-3616
`
`Michael C. Wilson (Texas Bar No.
`21704590 - admission pro hac vice to be
`requested)
`mwilson@munckwilson.com
`Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP
`2000 McKinney Ave., Ste. 1900
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Tel: (972) 628-3600
`Fax: (972) 628-3616
`John B. Campbell (Reg. No. 54,665)
`jcampbell@McKoolSmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2100
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: (512) 692-8730
`Fax: (512) 692-8744
`
`Casey Shomaker (Reg. No. 77,998)
`
`– 3 –
`
`

`

`Lead Counsel
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`Backup Counsel
`cshomaker@mckoolsmith.com
`McKool Smith, P.C.
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1200
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: (214) 978-4218
`Fax: (214) 978-4044
`
`Emily Tannenbaum (Reg. No. 80,655)
`etannenbaum@mckoolsmith.com
`McKool Smith, P.C.
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, Fl. 32
`New York, NY 10019
`Tel: (212) 402-9441
`Fax: (212) 402-9444
`
`An executed power of attorney under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) accompanies this
`
`Petition.
`
`D.
`Service Information Under § 42.8(b)(4)
`Petitioners consent to electronic service at the above designated Counsel
`
`email addresses and at the following email address:
`
`SWA-IV@munckwilson.com.
`
`Service of any documents via post or hand-delivery may be made at: Munck
`
`Wilson Mandala LLP, 2000 McKinney Ave., Ste. 1900, Dallas, TX 75201;
`
`Telephone: (972) 628-3600; Facsimile: (972) 628-3616.
`
`– 4 –
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioners certify the ’844 Patent is
`
`available for IPR, and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting an
`
`IPR challenging the claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. This Petition is
`
`filed within one year of service of the Complaint. Exs.1019,1020.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioners respectfully request review and cancellation of claims 1-27 on the
`
`following prior art and statutory grounds:
`
`Prior Art
`Sapuntzakis, et al. “Optimizing the Migration of Virtual Computers,” published
`12/31/2002 (Ex.1005);
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`U.S. 7,089,300 (Birse), issued 8/8/2006 (Ex.1006);
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b) and/or (e)
`U.S. 2005/0283597 (Holzmann), published 12/22/2005 (Ex.1007);
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b) and/or (e)
`U.S. 2003/0182313 (Federwisch), published 9/25/2003 (Ex.1008);
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b) and/or (e)
`
`Ground Challenged Claims
`1
`1-13
`2
`14-27
`3
`1-13
`4
`14-27
`
`
`Basis
`§ 103: Sapuntzakis and Holzmann
`§ 103: Sapuntzakis and Federwisch
`§ 103: Birse and Holzmann
`§ 103: Birse and Federwisch
`
`– 5 –
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`IV. THE ’844 PATENT
`A. Overview
`The ’844 Patent describes clustered computing involving multiple compute
`
`nodes with Operating System (“OS”) software image management, where nodes are
`
`activated by diskless booting protocols or remote software installation to local
`
`storage, and where a boot image is required for each node in the cluster – and states
`
`that storing a boot image for each server results in wasted storage, and copying the
`
`entire master image at boot results in long boot times. Ex.1001, 1:31-67. Ex.1003,
`
`¶¶160-65. The Background discusses branching-store file systems where a read-only
`
`“root” image is accessible by all nodes, and changes made by a node to the root
`
`image are stored in a “leaf” image unique to that node–a filter merges the leaf images
`
`with the root image to provide a cohesive instance of the application environment.
`
`Ex.1001, 2:13-24. Ex.1003, ¶¶166-72.
`
`The system, as shown in Fig. 1, includes a general purpose computing system
`
`environment (compute node 100). Ex.1001, 4:27-36.
`
`– 6 –
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`
`Fig. 2 diagrams system 200 (e.g., a multi-computer system) having a number
`
`of compute nodes 220a-n coupled to a first storage unit 240 and a corresponding
`
`second storage unit 250a-n through a corresponding union block device (“UBD”)
`
`230a-n. Ex.1001, 5:12-22. To the compute nodes 220a-n, it appears that they have
`
`access to their own version of the application environment. However, a separate boot
`
`image is not created and stored for each node. Ex.1001, 5:22-26. Ex.1003 ¶¶177-78.
`
`– 7 –
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`
`
`Instead, a first storage unit 240 stores blocks of the root image. The root image
`
`contains data initially common to the compute nodes 220a-n, and is not changed by
`
`them. Ex.1001, 5:27-32. Each compute node 220a-n also has access to a
`
`corresponding second storage unit 250a-n for storing a leaf image, which in the
`
`challenged claims includes “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…” or similar language. Id., 5:33-34, 10:61-65, 11:32-35, 12:4-
`
`8, 12:47-50. The first storage unit 240 and second storage units 250a-n may each be
`
`contained on separate physical storage devices, on separate logical spaces on the
`
`same storage device, or any combination thereof. Ex.1001, 5:34-38. Ex.1003 ¶¶179-
`
`81.
`
`– 8 –
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`A compute node 220a-n mounts its instantiation of the application
`
`environment via its respective UBD 230a-n which, in one embodiment, are
`
`“effectively low level drivers that operate as an interface between the first and
`
`second storage devices and the file system of each compute node 220a-n.” Id., 5:59-
`
`64. UBDs 230a-n determine what “leaf image” (from the appropriate second storage
`
`unit 250) is needed for portions of the image that their respective compute nodes
`
`220a-n have changed, and locate the portions of the image not changed by their
`
`respective node (which may reside in the root image or intermediate images
`
`comprising versions of the root image, not depicted in Fig. 2). Ex.1001, 6:4-13.
`
`UBDs 230a-n also create a new leaf image on a respective second storage unit 250a-
`
`n when their respective compute nodes 220a-n make changes to their instantiations
`
`of the image (and may also modify the leaf image in response to their respective
`
`compute node’s access to its instance of the image). Id., 6:13-22. Ex.1003, ¶¶182-
`
`87, 200-203.
`
`The blocks of the root image, leaf image, and cache are merged “on the fly”
`
`to create the node’s image. Ex.1001, 8:13-15. From the node’s perspective, the
`
`created image appears as one cohesive image even though a separate and complete
`
`image is not actually stored for the node. Id., 8:18-55. This saves space without
`
`significantly impacting load times. See id., 2:51-57. Ex.1003 ¶¶164, 188-89.
`
`– 9 –
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`The ’844 Patent claims to further improve speed by caching portions of the
`
`root image in a cache 260 (as several nodes in a cluster may often access the same
`
`root image data). Ex.1001, 2:59-61, 6:38-43. Because cache capacity is typically
`
`limited, older data can be removed (as the amount approaches a threshold) to make
`
`way for new data by techniques “known in the art.” Id., 7:1-16. Ex.1003 ¶¶189-90.
`
`The ’844 Patent provides an “added benefit” by which one compute node can
`
`index the contents of the (shared) root image and provide the results to the other
`
`compute nodes (e.g., by storing results on a shared storage unit or providing the
`
`results directly). Ex.1001, 7:23-31. Ex.1003 ¶¶191-199.
`
`B.
`Effective Filing Date
`The asserted claims of the ’844 Patent have a filing date of February 21, 2007.
`
`Application No. 11/709,477 (the “’477 Application”), which matured into the ’844
`
`Patent, was filed on February 21, 2007 and was a continuation-in-part of Application
`
`No. 11/395,816 (filed March 30, 2006) (now Patent No. 7,721,282) (the “’816
`
`Application”), which was a continuation-in-part of Application No. 11/026,622
`
`(filed December 20, 2004) (now abandoned) (the “’622 Application”).
`
`However, none of the ’844 Patent claims are entitled to either priority date, as
`
`the ’816 and ’622 Applications never mention caching or indexing – at least one of
`
`which is expressly recited in each claim of the ’844 Patent. Ex.1001, 10:55-14:17;
`
`compare Ex.1001 6:37-7:44, Figs. 2, 3A, 3B, 7 with Ex.1009, 4-40 and Ex.1010, 8-
`
`– 10 –
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`30. See Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Shell Oil Co., 112 F.3d 1561, 1564 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1997). Therefore, the asserted claims of the ’844 Patent are only entitled to a filing
`
`date of February 21, 2007.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill
`A POSITA, on or before February 21, 2007, or alternatively on or before
`
`December 30, 2004, would have had a bachelor's degree in computer science,
`
`computer engineering, or an equivalent degree, and approximately two years of
`
`experience working in the fields of networked data storage, file systems, and
`
`operating systems. Additional experience might substitute for less education and
`
`vice versa. Ex.1003 at ¶34.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claim terms are construed according to the Phillips standard in an IPR.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005); 37 C.F.R. §42.100. The
`
`analysis in Sections VI-IX establishes that the challenged claims are obvious under
`
`any reasonable interpretation under the Phillips standard, and thus Petitioners submit
`
`that the Board need not resolve any express constructions.1 See, e.g., Toyota Motor
`
`
`1 Patent Owner very broadly reads the claims asserted in the litigation against com-
`
`monly and widely used open-source software known as Docker “containers.” See
`
`Ex.1021.
`
`– 11 –
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`Corp. v. Cellport Systems, Inc., IPR2015-00633, Paper 11 at 16 (Aug. 14, 2015)
`
`(citing Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011)) (claim construction only required where necessary to resolve dispute).
`
`Ex.1003, ¶¶307-309. Should any subsequent discussion of claim interpretation arise
`
`here or in the parallel district court proceedings, Petitioners reserve the right to
`
`propose constructions and respond to any construction advanced by the Patent
`
`Owner, the Board, and/or the Court.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ART
`Systems and methods for using Internet-connected servers for storing read-
`
`only root images and separately storing modified blocks of data (leaf images),
`
`caching frequently used data, and merging modified data with original root image
`
`data, was known well before the critical date of the ’844 Patent. As explained by Dr.
`
`Zadok, servers that communicated over the Internet were well known before the
`
`mid-2000s. See Ex.1003, ¶¶52-85 (citing Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 3rd ed.,
`
`1997 (Ex.1011) (describing various Internet networks, communication protocols,
`
`and distributed computing environments used by servers) and RFC-3720 (Ex.1017)
`
`(describing protocol on top of TCP used to transport data over Internet/IP
`
`networks)).
`
`Systems using snapshots with network access and using copy-on-write (CoW)
`
`were also known. For example, Hitz (Ex.1013) was a paper on “File System Design
`
`– 12 –
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`for an NFS File Server Appliance” that described a “WAFL (Write Anywhere File
`
`Layout)” which was “a file system designed specifically to work in an NFS
`
`appliance.” The “primary focus is on the algorithms and data structures that WAFL
`
`uses to implement SnapshotsTM, which are read-only clones of the active file system.
`
`WAFL uses a copy-on-write technique to minimize the disk space that Snapshots
`
`consume.” Ex.1013, 4. Ex.1003, ¶109.
`
`As further explained by Dr. Zadok, Hitz described that snapshots can be
`
`created and deleted as needed, offering space saving and improved reliability. Hitz
`
`explained that “snapshots use a copy-on-write technique to avoid duplicating disk
`
`blocks that are the same in a Snapshot as in the active file system” and “[o]nly when
`
`blocks in the active file system are modified or removed do Snapshots containing
`
`those blocks begin to consume disk space.” Ex.1013, 6. Ex.1003, ¶¶110-14.
`
`Various other systems used read-only root images with CoW-based systems.
`
`See, e.g., Fair (Ex.1016) at 6:18-41, 21:27-31 (describing storing a read-only base
`
`snapshot on a source volume and using writable clones), Patterson I (Ex.1014) at 2-
`
`3, 8, 12 (describing asynchronous mirrors enabling self-consistent snapshots of
`
`data), and Patterson II (Ex.1015) (describing merging/synchronization of a target
`
`volume with a source volume where data blocks that are found to not be in the source
`
`are copied to a target to replace original source blocks with modified data). Ex.1003,
`
`¶¶115-138.
`
`– 13 –
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`Caching data was also well known before the ’844 Patent as a means to store
`
`data in faster memory that is frequently used by computing systems. See Ex.1003,
`
`¶¶86-101 (citing Silberschatz (Ex.1012) at 42-43, Figs. 2,6 (describing data storage
`
`hierarchies that prioritize use of faster storage systems to maximize cost,
`
`speed/latency, etc.) and Ex.1011 at 72,122,151,276,395 (describing use of cache
`
`storage for “frequently accessed segments of data”)). Ex.1003, ¶¶115-138.
`
`Indexing data and file systems was also well known before the ’844 Patent as
`
`a means to organize a catalog for finding information more efficiently. See Ex.1003,
`
`¶¶86-101 (citing Ex.1011 at 247,505 (describing indexing of file systems to enable
`
`searching of data)). Ex.1003, ¶¶115-138.
`
`The cited references detailed below further demonstrate the claims of the ’844
`
`Patent were well known and obvious before the ’844 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`Sapuntzakis (Ex.1005)
`
`Sapuntzakis concerns system architecture for quickly moving the state of a
`
`running computer (including its OS, applications and user files on disk, and all data
`
`in memory) – called a “capsule” – across a network to another machine. Ex.1005, 2.
`
`Sapuntzakis discloses “copy-on-write” (“COW”) disk images that track just the
`
`updates to the disk-storage component of capsules. Id., Ex.1003 ¶¶225-30.
`
`Sapuntzakis was available at http://www.usenix.org at least as early as 2004. See
`
`Exs.1022, 1023. Sapuntzakis is currently still available on the Usenix website at
`
`– 14 –
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`https://www.usenix.org/legacy/publications/library/proceedings/osdi02/tech/full_p
`
`apers/sapuntzakis/sapuntzakis.pdf.
`
`As users travel (commute), the system can move their capsules to computers
`
`close to them, giving them a consistent environment. Ex.1005, 3. Ex.1003, ¶¶227-
`
`28. As capsules are mostly derived from other capsules, and thus differences
`
`between related capsules are small relative to their total size, disks in those capsules
`
`can be stored efficiently by creating a hierarchy where each child capsule can be
`
`viewed as inheriting from its parent – with the differences in disk state between them
`
`captured in a separate COW virtual disk. Ex.1005, 6. Ex.1003, ¶¶229-231.
`
`At the hierarchy base is a root disk, which is a complete capsule disk. For
`
`example, administrators can install and maintain the same software set on multiple
`
`machines by creating one (inactive) capsule and distributing it to all machines.
`
`Ex.1005, 6. This approach shares similarities with disk imaging, but the disclosed
`
`system allows multiple capsules to exist on the same machine. Id., 5. Ex.1003 ¶¶231-
`
`32.
`
`All other nodes of the hierarchy represent a COW disk. Each path of COW
`
`disks originating from the root in the capsule hierarchy represents a capsule disk.
`
`Figure 1 shows an example of a capsule hierarchy (for a university) where the
`
`root capsule contains all software available to students, departments may extend
`
`– 15 –
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,844
`the basic capsules with department-specific software, and student files are
`
`stored on networked storage servers. Ex.1005, 6. Ex.1003, ¶¶233-34.
`
`
`
`Each COW disk is implemented as a bitmap file and a sequence of extent files
`
`(a sequence of blocks of the COW disk). The bitmap file contains one bit for each
`
`16KB block on the disk, indicating whether the block is present in the COW disk.
`
`Writes to a capsule disk are performed by writing the data to the latest COW disk
`
`and updating its bitmap file. Reads involve searching the latest COW disk and its
`
`ancestor disks in turn until the required block is found. Ex.1005, 6. Because the root
`
`COW disk contains a copy of all blocks, the search is guaranteed to terminate. Id.,
`
`6-7. Ex.1003 ¶¶233-34.
`
`Figure 2 shows an example capsule disk and the chain of COW disks that
`
`comprise the capsule disk. Notably, none of the COW disks (from “COW Disk 1”
`
`to the “Latest COW Disk”) contain any unchanged blocks of the root disk. Nor is
`
`– 16 –
`
`

`