Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-02148, (PTAB Sept. 27, 2017)

DOCKET NO.
: 43930-0006IP1
Filed on behalf of Unified Patents, Inc.
By: C. Eric Schulman, Reg. No. 43,350
W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
Fish & Richardson P.C.
500 Arguello St., Suite 500
Redwood City, CA 94063
Tel: (650) 839-5070
Email: schulman@fr.com
Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518

Ashraf Fawzy, Reg. No. 67,914
Unified Patents, Inc.
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
Washington, DC, 20003
Tel: (202) 805-8931
Email: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________________________________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________________________________________
UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.

Petitioner
v.
UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
Patent Owner
IPR2017-02148
U.S. Patent 6,564,229
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF

U.S. PATENT NO. 6,564,229
CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-19
UNDER 35 U.S.C. 312 AND 37 C.F.R. 42.104
Proceeding No. IPR2017-02148
Attorney Docket 43930-0006IP1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Mandatory Notices 1
A. Real Party-in-Interest 1
B. Related Matters 1
C. Counsel 2
D. Service Information 2
II. Certification of Grounds for Standing 2
III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested 3
A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications 3
B. Grounds for Challenge 4
IV. Overview of the 229 Patent 5
A. Summary of the Alleged Invention 5
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art 7
C. Prosecution History 7
V. Claim Construction 8
A. computer system is available for other processing operations 8
B. Means-plus-function limitations 9
1. means for reading a first portion of the data file (claim 10) and means
for reading a first data portion from the source file (claim 16) 10
2. means for writing the first portion to a new file (claim 10) and means
for writing the first data portion to the target file (claim 16) 10
3. means for pausing the copy tool in response to a user request from a
user interface (claim 10) and means for pausing the copying in response to a
user requesting a pause operation from a user interface (claim 16) 15
4. means for resuming the copy tool in response to a user request (claim
10) 17
5. means for reading a second portion of the data file (claim 10) and
means for reading a second data portion from the source file (claim 16) 19
6. means for writing the second portion to the second location (claim 10)
i
and means for writing the second data portion to the target file (claim 16) 19
7. means for transmitting the first and second portions from the remote
computer system to the computer system (claim 11) and means for
transmitting first and second data portions across a computer network (claim
18) 20
8. means for writing an index to a storage area (claims 12, 17) 22
9. means for reading an index from a storage area (claim 13) 23
10. means for selecting a block size (claim 14, 19) 24
11. means for reading one or more blocks (claim 14) 24
12. means for writing one or more blocks (claim 14) 24
VI. Specific Grounds for Petition 25
A. Ground I: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-11, 14-16, 18, and 19 are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Wiese in view of Chowdhury 25
1. Overview of Wiese 25
2. Overview of Chowdhury 27
3. The Combination of Wiese and Chowdhury 29
4. Motivation to Combine Wiese and Chowdhury 31
5. Claim 1 is obvious over Wiese and Chowdhury 33
a) A method for copying data from a source file to a target file on a
computer system, said method comprising 33
b) reading a first data portion from the source file; 33
c) writing the first data portion to the target file; 33
d) pausing the copying in response to a user requesting a pause operation
from a user interface, wherein the computer system is available for other
processing operations following the pausing; 34
e) reading a second data portion from the source file, in response to the
user requesting a resume operation; 36
f) writing the second data portion to the target file. 36
a) The method as described in claim 1 wherein the first and second data
portions each include one or more blocks of data. 38
a) The method as described in claim 1 wherein the source file resides on
ii
a remote computer system and wherein the target file resides on the
computer system, the method further comprising transmitting the first and
second data portions across a computer network, the computer network
connecting the remote computer system and the computer system. 38
a) The method as described in claim 1 further comprising: selecting a
block size, the block size corresponding to the size of the first and second
data portions. 39
a) The method as described in claim 8 wherein the selecting further
includes: testing a transmission speed between a source file location
corresponding with the source file and a target file location corresponding
with the target file. 40
a) A computer system comprising: 40
b) one or more processors; 41
c) one or more nonvolatile storage devices accessible by the one or more
processors, wherein the nonvolatile storage devices each include a plurality
of locations for storing files; 41
d) a data file stored at a first location on the nonvolatile storage device;
41
e) a copy tool, the copy tool including: 41
f) means for reading a first portion of the data file; 42
g) means for writing the first portion to a new file, the new file located at
a second location; 42
h) means for pausing the copy tool in response to a user request from a
user interface, wherein the computer system is available for other
i) means for resuming the copy tool in response to a user request; 43
j) means for reading a second portion of the data file in response to the
resuming; and 44
k) means for writing the second portion to the second location. 44
a) The computer system as described in claim 10 further comprising: a
iii
remote computer system and the computer system interconnected with a
computer network, the remote computer system and the computer system
each including a nonvolatile storage device, one or more processors, and a
network interface, wherein the first location is included in the nonvolatile
storage device connected to the remote computer system and wherein the
second location is included in the nonvolatile storage device connected to
the computer system; and 45
b) means for transmitting the first and second portions from the remote
computer system to the computer system. 46
a) The computer system as described in claim 10 further comprising:
means for selecting a block size; 46
b) wherein each of the means for reading includes means for reading one
or more blocks; and 47
c) wherein each of the means for writing includes means for writing one
or more blocks. 47
d) wherein the selecting further includes testing a transmission speed
between the first location and the second location. 47
a) A computer program product in a computer usable medium for
copying data from a source file to a target file on a computer system,
comprising: 48
b) means for reading a first data portion from the source file; 48
c) means for writing the first data portion to the target file; 48
d) means for pausing the copying in response to a user requesting a
pause operation from a user interface, wherein the computer system is
available for other processing operations following the pausing; 48
e) means for reading a second data portion from the source file in
response to the user requesting a resume operation; and 48
f) means for writing the second data portion to the target file. 48
a) wherein the source file resides on a remote computer system and
wherein the target file resides on the computer system, the computer
operable medium further comprising: means for transmitting the first and
second data portions across a computer network, the computer network
iv
connecting the remote computer system and the computer system. 49
a) The computer program product as described in claim 16 further
comprising: means for selecting a block size, the block size corresponding
to the size of the first and second data portions. 49
B. Ground II: Claims 3-5, 12, 13, and 17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as obvious over Wiese in view of Chowdhury, Miller, and Day 49
1. Overview of Miller 49
2. Overview of Day 50
3. Claim 3 is obvious over Wiese, Chowdhury, Miller, and Day 51
a) The method as described in claim 1 wherein the pausing further
includes: writing an index to a storage area, the index including a pointer to
the second data portion within the source file. 51
a) The method as described in claim 3 wherein the writing an index to a
storage area further includes: writing a source file path name to the storage
area; and writing a target file path to a storage area. 52
a) The method as described in claim 4 wherein the reading a second data
portion further comprises: reading the index, source file path name, and
target file path name from the storage area. 53
a) The computer system as described in claim 10 wherein the means for
pausing further includes: means for writing an index to a storage area, the
index including a pointer to the second data portion within the data file. 54
a) The computer system as described in claim 10 wherein the means for
resuming further includes: means for reading an index from a storage area,
the index including a pointer to the second data portion within the data
file. 54
a) The computer program product as described in claim 16 wherein the
means for pausing further includes: means for writing an index to a storage
area, the index including a pointer to the second data portion within the
v
source file. 55
C. Ground III: Claim 7 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious
over Wiese in view of Chowdhury and Raucci 55
1. Overview of Raucci 55
2. Claim 7 is obvious over Wiese, Chowdhury, and Raucci 55
a) The method as described in claim 1 further comprising: displaying an
amount completed, the amount completed showing a total amount of data
written to the target file. 55
D. Ground IV: Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious
over Romrell in view of Chowdhury 56
1. Overview of Romrell 56
2. The Combination of Romrell and Chowdhury 59
3. Motivation to Combine Romrell and Chowdhury 61
4. Claim 1 is obvious over Romrell and Chowdhury 63
a) A method for copying data from a source file to a target file on a
computer system, said method comprising 63
b) reading a first data portion from the source file; 63
c) writing the first data portion to the target file; 63
d) pausing the copying in response to a user requesting a pause operation
from a user interface, wherein the computer system is available for other
e) reading a second data portion from the source file in response to the
user requesting a resume operation, and 66
f) writing the second data portion to the target file. 66
VII. Conclusion 67
vi
I. Mandatory Notices
A. Real Party-in-Interest
Unified Patents, Inc. (Unified Patents or Petitioner) certifies it is the real
party-in-interest, and further certifies that no other party exercised or could exercise
direction, funding, or control over its participation in this proceeding, the filing of
this petition, or the conduct of any ensuing trial.
B. Related Matters
U.S. Pat. 6,564,229 (the 229 Patent (EX1001)) is owned by Uniloc
Luxembourg S.A. (Uniloc or Patent Owner). The 229 Patent is asserted in at
least eight lawsuits. A list of related actions involving the 229 Patent as of the date
of filingto the extent related actions are identifiable through diligent searching
follows:
Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Square Enix, Inc., 2:17-cv-00302 (TXED);
Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Nexon America, Inc., 2:17-cv-00276 (TXED);
Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Big Fish Games, Inc., 2:17-cv-00172 (TXED);
Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Ubisoft, Inc., 2:17-cv-00175 (TXED);
Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., 2:17-cv-00305 (TXED);
Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 2:17-cv-00375 (TXED);
Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Big Fish Games, Inc., 2:17-cv-01183 (WAWD);
Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 3:17-cv-02116 (TXND).
1
C. Counsel
Lead Counsel: C. Eric Schulman (Registration No. 43,350)
Backup Counsel: Jonathan Stroud (Registration No. 72,518)
Backup Counsel: W. Karl Renner (Registration No. 41,265)
Backup Counsel: Ashraf A. Fawzy (Registration No. 67,914)
D. Service Information
3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
T: 202-783-5070
F: 877-769-7945
Email: PTABInbound@fr.com
Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at IPR43930-
0006IP1@fr.com (referencing No. 43930-0006IP1 and ccing
PTABInbound@fr.com, schulman@fr.com, axf-ptab@fr.com,
jonathan@unifiedpatents.com, and afawzy@unifiedpatents.com. C. Eric Schulman
can be reached directly at 650-839-5149.
II. Certification of Grounds for Standing
Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which review
is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or
2
estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the
grounds identified in this Petition.
III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested
Petitioner challenges all claims of the 229 Patent (the Challenged Claims).
A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
These references pertain to the grounds of unpatentability:1
1. U.S. Patent 6,108,707 (filed May 8, 1998; patented August 22, 2000)
(Wiese (EX1004)), prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
2. U.S. Patent 6,026,439 (filed October 28, 1997; published February 15, 2000)
(Chowdhury (EX1005)), prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
3. U.S. Patent 6,396,805 (filed December 30, 1997; patented May 28, 2002)
(Romrell (EX1006)), prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
4. U.S. Patent 5,553,083 (filed January 19, 1995; patented September 3, 1996)
(Miller (EX1007)), prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
1
The 229 Patent issued from an application filed prior to enactment of the
America Invents Act (AIA). Pre-AIA statutory framework applies.
3
5. J. Day, A Proposed File Access Protocol Specification (RFC 520, June
1973) (Day (EX1008)), prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).2
6. R. Raucci. A Windows NTTM Guide to the Web, Chapter 2, Springer
Science+Business Media, New York, 1997 (Raucci (EX1009)), prior art
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). 3
B. Grounds for Challenge
Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) on a first set of grounds and cancellation of claim 1 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) on a distinct ground.
The first set:
Ground I: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-11, 14-16, 18, and 19 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Wiese (EX1004) in view of Chowdhury
(EX1005);
2
Publicly available prior to June 8, 2000, at least because of the widely-understood
RFC process of publication and distribution, the date on the front page, and further
citation of the document. See EX1011 at 13-27.
3
Publicly available as of October 5, 1997, at least because of a date stamp,
checkout stamps, and the date listed in the front matter. See EX1011 at 28-33.
4
Ground II: Claims 3-5, 12, 13, and 17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as obvious over Wiese (EX1004) in view of Chowdhury (EX1005),
further in view of Miller (EX1007) and Day (EX1008);
Ground III: Claim 7 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious
over Wiese (EX1004) in view of Chowdhury (EX1005), further in view of Raucci
(EX1009);
The distinct ground for claim 1:
Ground IV: Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious
over Romrell (EX1006) in view of Chowdhury (EX1005);
This Petition, supported by the accompanying declaration of Dr. Ethan Miller
(Miller Decl. (EX1003)), demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that
Petitioner will prevail with respect to the Challenged Claims. See 35 U.S.C. 314(a).
IV. Overview of the 229 Patent
A. Summary of the Alleged Invention
The 229 Patent describes a move/copy interface [that] is provided with a
pause feature that allows the user to pause and subsequently resume a move or copy
command. 229 Patent at Abstract (EX1001).
The 229 Patent acknowledges that moving and copying data from one file
to another often have the problem that [c]opying large data files can be a very
5
system intensive task using a large amount of system resources, causing system
resources to appear to halt or otherwise slow down. Id. at 1:14-15, 57-61. The 229
Patent identifies the prior art solution: the user [can] cancel the copy operation.
This solution has the disadvantage that by canceling the copy operation, the data
that has already been copied would have to be recopied when the copy operation is
re-invoked by the user. Id. at 2:2-4.
The 229 Patent suggests solving this problem by allowing for pausing move
or copy operations in order to provide computing resources to other system
operations. Id. at 1:10-12. When the user selects the pause button, the copy
operation is suspended. Information regarding the copy operation is retained so that
the operation can be resumed at a later time. Id. at 2:12-15. By pausing the copy
operation, the user frees resources, such as processing capacity and nonvolatile
storage access, for use by other processes that the user wishes to execute. Id. at
4:37-40; see also EX1003 at 34-35.
However, this was well-known in the art at the time the 229 Patent was filed.
See, e.g., Wiese at 2:38-42 (If it is determined that a task has been initiated, the file
transfer operation is suspended, and a computer resource is yielded to accomplish
the user initiated task.), 2:53-60 (EX1004); Romrell at 7:24-32 (EX1006).
6
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the 229
Patent (POSITA) would have had a working knowledge of computer science, a
Bachelors or Masters degree in computer science or comparable field, and at least
three years of related work experience or training. EX1003 at 33.
C. Prosecution History
The 229 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 09/589,794 (794
Application), filed June 8, 2000. EX1002 at 72. Examiner rejected the claims under
35 U.S.C. 102(a) as anticipated by U.S. Patent 5,914,941 (EX1010). Applicant
amended the claims to recite that the computer system is available for other
processing operations following the pausing. Id. at 161. Examiner issued an
allowance, stating:
the prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious copying
data from a source file to a target file on a computer system
wherein in response to a user requesting a pause operation from a
user interface, the computer system pauses the copying and is
available for other processing operations and in response to a
user requesting a resume operation, the system resumes the
copying operation where it was paused, in combination with all
the limitations recited in [the independent] claims.
Id. at 167 (emphasis added).
7
V. Claim Construction
Claim terms of an unexpired patent in inter partes review are given the
broadest reasonable construction [BRI] in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R.
42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2142
(2016). Any claim terms not included in the following discussion should be given
their ordinary meaning in light of the specification.
A. computer system is available for other processing

operations
The term computer system is available for other processing operations, in
claims 1, 10 and 16, should be interpreted to mean that at least a substantial portion
of one or more resources of the computer system, such as a processor, memory, or
network resources, that are being used by the copy operation are freed from the copy
operation to be used to carry out a task other than the copy operation. EX1003 at
38-39.
The 229 Patent does not define the term computer system is available for
other processing operations, nor is it used outside the claims. However, the 229
Patent states that [b]y pausing the copy operation, the user frees resources, such as
processing capacity and nonvolatile storage access, for use by other processes that
the user wishes to execute. 229 Patent at 4:37-40 (EX1001). This construction is
consistent with the specification of the 229 Patent and the ordinary use of the term.
EX1003 at 38-39.
8
B. Means-plus-function limitations
Claims 10-14 and 16-19 include limitations that include the words means for
followed by functional language, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the
limitations are governed by 112 6. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d
1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Personalized Media Commcns, LLC v. ITC, 161
F.3d 696, 703-04 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Means-plus function terms are construed to
cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and
equivalents thereof. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, 6. In determining whether a
limitation should be construed under 35 U.S.C. 112, 6, the essential inquiry is
not merely the presence or absence of the word means but whether the words of
the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently
definite meaning as the name for structure. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC792
F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
A POSITA would not have understood the limitations of claims 10-14 and 16-
19 listed below to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure, and
thus the terms should be construed under 35 U.S.C. 112, 6. EX1003 at 40.
Construing a means-plus function claim term is a two-step process. The court
must first identify the claimed function.... Then, the court must determine what
structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function.
792 F.3d 1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner proposes the structures described
9
below for the means-plus-function claim terms in claims 10-14 and 16-19. For the
purpose of this petition, we provide the following constructions.
1. means for reading a first portion of the data file (claim

10) and means for reading a first data portion from the source
file (claim 16)
2. means for writing the first portion to a new file (claim 10)
and means for writing the first data portion to the target file
(claim 16)
The recited functions are reading a first portion of the data file, reading a
first data portion from the source file, writing the first portion to a new file, and
writing the first data portion to the target file. These functions are depicted in
Figure 2, infra, where source file 220 is copied to destination file 230 within
destination nonvolatile storage device 210. During the copy process, processing
reads bytes of data from source nonvolatile storage device 200 and transfers the
blocks of data to destination nonvolatile storage device 210. Id. at 4:21-29.
10
Figure 5, infra, depicts a method of implementing the copy operation
Processing commences (step 500) whereupon a source file name (input 505) and a
target file name (input 510) are input to provide the move/copy program with the
source and target files (including any address information, such as the file path
information and destination computer address). A block size is also provided (input
515). Id. at 6:11-18.
11
[T]he block number is initialized to zero (step 520) to keep track of the
number of blocks read from the source file and written to the target file. An
initialization read (input 525) reads the first block from the source file. Loop A (loop
530) begins a loop that will read the source file until the end of file is reached. Within
loop A, each block read is written to the target file (output 535). Id. at 6:31-38.
The corresponding structure for performing these functions is an information
handling system 801 which is a simplified example of a computer system capable of
12
performing the copy processing described above and illustrated in Figure 5, supra.
Id. at 8:15-18. Information handling system 801, shown in Figure 8, infra, includes
processor 800 which is coupled to host bus 805. A level two (L2) cache memory 810
is also coupled to the host bus 805. Host-to-PCI bridge 815 is coupled to main
memory 820, includes cache memory and main memory control functions, and
provides bus control to handle transfers among PCI bus 825, processor 800, L2 cache
810, main memory 820, and host bus 805. PCI bus 825 provides an interface for a
variety of devices including, for example, LAN card 830 PCI-to-ISA bridge 835
provides bus control to handle transfers between PCI bus 825 and ISA bus 840,
universal serial bus (USB) functionality 845. Id. at 8:18-29.
13
The information handling system is one example of a computer system.
Those skilled in the art will appreciate that many other computer system designs are
capable of performing the copying process described here. Id. at 8:55-58.
The means for reading a first portion of the data file (claim 10), the means
for reading a first data portion from the source file (claim 16); the means for
14
writing the first portion to a new file (claim 10), and the means for writing the first
data portion to the target file (claim 16) should be construed to require the structure
of the information handling system of Figure 8 or similar general purpose computer
system programmed to read a portion of a file or to write to a file, respectively, using
the steps described above (referring to Figure 5) and equivalents thereof.
3. means for pausing the copy tool in response to a user

request from a user interface (claim 10) and means for pausing
the copying in response to a user requesting a pause operation
from a user interface (claim 16)
The recited functions are pausing the copy tool in response to a user request
from a user interface and pausing the copying in response to a user requesting a
pause operation from a user interface. These functions are depicted in Figures 1a,
2, 4a, and 6, which illustrate pausing a copy operation responsive to a user selecting
a pause command button.
Figure 6, infra, shows a method for implementing pause processing 550 that
would take place when the user requests to pause the copy operation. The program
determines whether an extended pause is desired (decision 605). If an extended
pause has been requested, yes branch 609 is taken. Id. at 6:51-65.
15
[I]f the user requested an extended pause, decision 605 would branch to yes
branch 609 in order to save the state of the copy operation before exiting the copy
program. For an extended pause, a pause file name is provided (input 650) so that
the information can be stored until the copy program is re-invoked. The source
file name is written to the pause file (output 660). The target file name is also written
to the pause file (output 670). The block size being used by the copy operation is
also written to the pause file (output 680) as well as the block number currently being
read and written by the copy operation (output 690). Id. at 7:21-38.
16
The means for pausing the copy tool in response to a user request from a user
interface (claim 10) and the means for pausing the copying in response to a user
requesting a pause operation from a user interface (claim 16) should be construed
to require the structure of the information handling system of Figure 8 or a similar
general purpose computer system, programmed to perform the steps described above
(referring to Figure 6) and equivalents thereof.
4. means for resuming the copy tool in response to a user

request (claim 10)
The recited function is resuming the copy tool in response to a user request.
This function is depicted in Figures 1b, 4b, and 7, which illustrate resuming a copy
operation responsive to a user selecting a resume command button.
Figure 7, infra, depicts a method for resuming a copy operation. [T]he
information stored in the pause file is first read so that the copy operation can resume
at the point where the previous copy operation was suspended. The pause
filename is provided (input 705) The pause file is read to determine the source
filename of the file being copied (input 710) [and] the target filename of the
destination file where the copied information is placed (input 715). The block size
being used to copy the source file to the target file is also read from the pause file
(input 720). The block number corresponding to the next block to be copied from
the source file to the target file is also read from the pause, file (input 725). The
block number is used so that the resume processing can commence at the correct
17
block within the source file. Id. at 7:41-63.
The means for resuming the copy tool in response to a user request should
be construed to require the structure of the information handling system of Figure 8
or a similar general purpose computer system, programmed to perform steps
18
described above (referring to Figure 7) and equivalents thereof.
5. means for reading a second portion of the data file (claim

10) and means for reading a second data portion from the source
file (claim 16)
6. means for writing the second portion to the second

location (claim 10) and means for writing the second data
portion to the target file (claim 16)
Referring to Figure 7, supra, [t]he next block of data is read during an
initialization read from the source file (input 730) before entering a loop to process
the remaining information from the source file. Loop A (loop begin 735) is
commenced to process the source file until the end of the source file is reached. Each
block read from the source file is written to the target file (output 740). The next
block is read from the source file (input 765) before the loop is closed at loop end
770. When the end of the source file has been reached, the final, or partial, block
that was read from the source file is written to the target file (output 775). Id. at
7:62-8:12.
The means for reading a second portion of the data file (claim 10), the
means for reading a second data portion from the source file (claim 16); the
means for writing the second portion to the second location (claim 10) and the
means for writing the second data portion to the target file (claim 16) should be
construed to require the structure of a general purpose computer programmed to
perform steps, e.g., steps 730 and 740, respectively (referring to Figure 7) and
19
equivalents thereof. See V.B.(1) and (2), supra.
7. means for transmitting the first and second portions from

the remote computer system to the computer system (claim 11)
and means for transmitting first and second data portions across
a computer network (claim 18)
The recited functions are transmitting the first and second portions from the
remote computer system to the computer system and transmitting first and second
data portions across a computer network. These functions are depicted in Figures
4a, infra, and 4b, which illustrate a copy operation copying a file from one computer
to another computer over a network such as the Internet. Internet 400 connects
source computer 405 and target computer 410. Source computer 405 copies blocks
from source file 425 stored on source nonvolatile storage device 415. As shown,
Block 435 is read by source computer 405 and transmitted as Block 445 to the
Internet 4000. Block 450 is received by destination computer 410 and appended to
destination file 430. Id. at 5:13-21.
20
The corresponding structure for performing this function is a computer
network: Both source computer 405 and destination computer 410 are connected to
the Internet. While the Internet is shown, it is only one example of a computer
network. Other computer networks that could be used in place of the Internet include
local area networks (LANs), wide area networks (WANs), and any other network
connecting two or more computers. Id. at 5:29-32.
The means for transmitting the first and second portions from the remote
computer system to the computer system (claim 11) and the means for transmitting
first and second data portions across a computer network (claim 18) should be
construed to require the structure of a computer network.
21
8. means for writing an index to a storage area (claims 12,
17)
The recited function is writing an index to a storage area. This function is
depicted in Figure 2, supra, which shows that index file 270 is created capturing
the state of the copy operation at the time the pause was requested. Index file 270
can either be created in memory or as a file within a nonvolatile storage device. Id.
at 4:40-44.
Referring to Figure 6, supra, branch 609 depicts sav[ing] the state of the copy
operation before exiting the copy program. [A] pause file name is provided (input
650) so that the information can be stored until the copy program is re-invoked.
The source file name is written to the pause file (output 660). The target file name is
also written to pause file (output 670). The block size being used by the copy
operation is also written to the pause file (output 680) as well as the block number
currently being read and written by the copy operation (output 690). Id. at 7:22-40.
The means for writing an index to a storage area should be construed to
require the structure of the information handling system of Figure 8 or similar
general purpose computer system programmed to write an index to a storage area
according to steps described above, e.g., steps 680 and 690 (referring to Figure 6)
and equivalents thereof.
22
9. means for reading an index from a storage area (claim
13)
The recited function is reading an index from a storage area. This function
is described as follows: Upon receiving the resume request, the copy operation
reads index file 270 [see Figure 2, supra] to determine where copying should
resume. Id. at 5:1-3.
Referring to Figure 7, supra, [t]he pause file is read to determine the source
filename of the file being copied (input 710). The pause file is also read to determine
the target filename of the destination file where the copied information is placed
(input 715). The block size being used to copy the source file to the target file is also
read from the pause file (input 720). The block number corresponding to the next
block to be copied from the source file to the target file is also read from the pause,
file (input 725). The block number is used so that the resume processing can
commence at the correct block within the source file. Id. at 7:52-64.
The means for reading an index from a storage area should be construed to
require the structure of the information handling system of Figure 8 or similar
general purpose computer system programmed to read an index from a storage area
according to the steps described above, e.g., steps 720 and 725 (referring to Figure
7) and equivalents thereof.
23
10. means for selecting a block size (claim 14, 19)
The recited function is selecting a block size. [O]ptimal block sizes are
determined by taking into account various factors, such as the type of media storing
the source and target files, the operating system being used, and the speed of the
transmission path. Id. at 4:55-59. To determine an optimal size, the throughput is
tested between the source file and target file. The higher the throughput, the greater
the block size. Id. at 6:21-28.
The means for selecting a block size should be construed to require the
structure of the information handling system of Figure 8 or similar general purpose
computer system programmed to select a block size by taking into account various
factors, such as the type of media storing the source and target files, the operating
system being used, and the speed of the transmission path, and equivalents thereof.
11. means for reading one or more blocks (claim 14)
12. means for writing one or more blocks (claim 14)

The recited functions are reading one or more blocks and writing one or
more blocks. These functions are depicted in Figure 2, supra, in which [s]ource
file 220 is shown as being broken into multiple blocks. During the copy process,
processing reads bytes of data from source nonvolatile storage device 200 and
transfers the blocks of data to destination nonvolatile storage device 210. The bytes
of data are equal in size to the block size. Id. at 4:24-30.
24
Referring to Figure 5, supra, an initialization read (input 525) reads the first
block from the source file. [E]ach block read is written to the target file (output
535). Id. at 6:31-38.
The means for reading one or more blocks and the means for writing one
or more blocks should be construed to require the structure of the information
handling system of Figure 8 or similar general purpose computer system
programmed to read and write one or more blocks according to the steps described
above, e.g., steps 525 and 535, (referring to Figure 5) and equivalents thereof.
VI. Specific Grounds for Petition

Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the following sections (as confirmed in
EX1003 at 41-75) demonstrate how the prior art discloses, teaches, and/or
suggests each and every limitation of the Challenged Claims of the 229 Patent, and
how these claims were obvious in view of the prior art.
A. Ground I: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-11, 14-16, 18, and 19 are

unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Wiese in view of
Chowdhury
1. Overview of Wiese
Wiese discloses transfer[ring] (i.e., copy and/or move) files from a source
location to a destination location within the computer system or computer network.
Wiese at Abstract (EX1004). Wieses file transfer involves transferring a file from
a source location [215 in Figure 2, infra] to a buffer [205], and then transferring the
25
file from the buffer to a destination location [e.g., the network server 120]. Id. at
2:36-38. The source location is a hard disk internal to the computer system 100
(see Figure 1, infra); the destination location is a memory location in the network
server 120. Id. at 3:66-67, 4:7-9.
26
The file transfer operation shares the computer systems resources (e.g., the
CPU) with other concurrent user initiated operations, including opening a window,
moving a window, entering data through the keyboard, expanding a pull-down
menu. Id. at Abstract, 6:37-39. If it is determined that the user has initiated such a
task, the file transfer operation yields the CPU 105 to process the user initiated task.
Id. at 6:39-41. Once the user initiated task is complete, the CPU 105 is turned back
over to the file transfer operation. Accordingly, the file transfer operation
resumes. Id. at 6:59-65.
Wieses suspension of a transfer responsive to a user initiated task and
resumption of the transfer once the task is completed optimizes the computer
systems ability to respond to user initiated tasks in a timely manner without
compromising file transfer operation performance. Id. at 7:37-39.
2. Overview of Chowdhury
Chowdhury discloses transferring data from memory to a file decoder, e.g.,
video files in a playlist. Chowdhury at Abstract (EX1005). During the transfer, [i]f
a user decides there is no need to view the entire file, or to switch to another file,
system efficiency and system speed would be greatly increased by providing a user
with the option to pause or terminate a video file transfer before the transfer has
totally completed. Id. at 1:45-50.
27
A transfer is initiated by calling a PLAY function (405 in Figure 4, infra). See
Id. at 5:47-48. After a PLAY 405 has been called, a PAUSE call 407 may be
invoked to pause the transfer of a video file. Id. at 5:57-60. To resume 411 from
a pause 409, the PLAY API function call is made. Id. at 6:1-2.
28
Chowdhurys PAUSE and PLAY functions allow a user to control[] the
identity, sequence and flow of file transfers in order to optimize transfer efficiency
in a data transfer transaction. Id. at 2:3-5.
3. The Combination of Wiese and Chowdhury
A POSITA would have found it obvious to integrate Chowdhurys approach
to allowing a user to pause a file transfer into Wieses file transfer. EX1003 at 59-
66.
Wieses file transfer is suspended when it is determined that the user has
initiated a task, yielding the CPU 105 to process the user initiated task. Wiese
at 6:39-41 (EX1004). When the user initiated task is complete, the CPU 105 is
turned back over to the file transfer operation and the file transfer operation
resumes. Id. at 6:59-65. Chowdhurys PLAY and PAUSE functions allow a user to
control[] the identity, sequence and flow of file transfers. Chowdhury at 2:3-4
(EX1005).
Both Wiese and Chowdhury teach file transfers that can be paused and
resumed responsive to user action. A POSITA would have integrated Chowdhurys
PAUSE and PLAY functions into Wieses file transfer to produce an integrated
system in which a user could explicitly request to pause a file transfer, yielding
computing resources to another task. EX1003 at 59,65.
29
A POSITA would have integrated Chowdhurys PAUSE and PLAY functions
with Wieses buffer, through which the read and write processes are coordinated. In
Wieses file transfer, the CPU delegates the task of coordinating (i.e., arbitrating)
the execution of the read and write processes 210 and 220 to the buffer 205. the
buffer 205 can suspend the read process 210 until the write process 220 transfers
enough file information from the buffer 205 to the destination location, thereby
creating additional space in the buffer 205 for the read process 210 to resume
operations. Wiese at 4:38-48 (EX1004). A POSITA would have integrated
Chowdhurys PAUSE and PLAY functions with Wieses buffer to obtain a system
in which the state of Wieses buffer is changed to suspend the read process
responsive to receipt of Chowdhurys PAUSE function and to resume the read
process responsive to receipt of Chowdhurys PLAY function. EX1003 at 60.
Alternatively or additionally, a POSITA would have integrated Chowdhurys
PLAY and PAUSE functions with Wieses status flags. In Wieses file transfer, a
user initiated task causes the interrupt handler to set the status flag, and a
determination as to whether the user has initiated a task is accomplished by
checking the state of the status flag. Wiese at 6:46-51 (EX1004); see also EX1003
at 45. If the status flag has been set the file transfer operation yields the CPU
105 to the user initiated task. Id. at 6:52-53. Once the user initiated task is
complete, the CPU 105 is turned back over to the file transfer operation. Id. at 6:59-
30
61. A POSITA would have configured Chowdhurys PAUSE function to cause
Wieses interrupt handler to set the status flag, resulting in the file transfer yielding
the CPU to the user initiated task. EX1003 at 61. Similarly, a POSITA would have
integrated Chowdhurys PLAY function with Wieses status flags such that calling
the PLAY function would return the CPU to the file transfer. Id. at 61.
4. Motivation to Combine Wiese and Chowdhury
A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Wiese and Chowdhury at
least because: 1) both references teach file transfer responsive to user action; and 2)
adding Chowdhurys PAUSE and PLAY functions into Wieses file transfer would
make Wieses file transfer more responsive to user input and provide a user with
greater control. EX1003 at 62-66.
Wieses file transfer addresses the following problem: the user is precluded
from interacting with the computer system until after the completion of the file
transfer operation. Wiese at 1:63-65. Wiese aims to improve the computer systems
ability to respond to user initiated operations without compromising file transfer
performance. Wiese at 2:29-31 (EX1004). Responding to Wieses desire for a user-
responsive file transfer, Chowdhurys PAUSE and PLAY functions enable a user to
request directly to pause or resume a file transfer, e.g., if the user wants to free
computer resources for any reason, such as at times of high network bandwidth usage
or for a pre-scheduled data back-up process. The integration of Chowdhurys
31
PAUSE and PLAY functions into Wieses file transfer would make the transfer
responsive not only to a users initiation of specific actions (as described in Wiese),
but also to a users direct request to pause or resume the transfer (as described in
Chowdhury). EX1003 at 62,65.
The combination of Wiese and Chowdhury 1) combines prior art elements
(Chowdhurys PAUSE and PLAY functions with Wieses file transfer) 2) according
to known methods (configuring Wieses file transfer to be responsive to
Chowdhurys functions) and 3) would have yielded a predictable result (file transfer
responsive to user requests to pause and resume). EX1003 at 63-64. See KSR
International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 415-16 (2007). A POSITA
would have had a reasonable expectation of success in integrating Chowdhurys
PAUSE and PLAY functions into Wieses file transfer given that Chowdhurys
PAUSE and PLAY functions are one of a finite number of identified solutions to
pausing and resuming file transfer. EX1003 at 63. Wiese provides rationale for the
combination by seeking to improve the computer systems ability to respond to user
initiated operations without compromising file transfer performance. Wiese at 2:29-
31 (EX1004); EX1003 at 66.
32
5. Claim 1 is obvious over Wiese and Chowdhury
a) A method for copying data from a source file to a

target file on a computer system, said method comprising
To the extent the preamble is deemed limiting, Wiese discloses the ability to
transfer (i.e., copy and/or move) files from a source location to a destination location
within the computer system. Wiese at Abstract (EX1004), see also Id. at 1:8-11.
b) reading a first data portion from the source file;
c) writing the first data portion to the target file;

Wiese describes a file transfer operation [that] involves at least two distinctly
independent processes: a read process and a write process. Id. at 3:49-51. Referring
to Figure 2, supra, Wiese describes the read and write processes:
The read process 210 proceeds by reading the one or more

files to be transferred from the source location 215, which
may be, for example, a hard disk internal to the computer system
100. After reading the one or more files from the source location
215, the read process stores the one or more files in the buffer
205. The write process 220 proceeds by writing the one or
more files from the buffer 205 to the destination location,
which may be, for example, a memory location in the network
server 120.
Id. at 3:64-4:9, emphasis added.
Wieses read and write processes involve reading portions of data from a
source file and writing the portions of data to a destination file. EX1003 at 42-43.
33
Wiese thus teaches reading a first data portion from the source file and writing
the first data portion to the target file, as recited in claim 1.
d) pausing the copying in response to a user requesting a

pause operation from a user interface, wherein the computer
system is available for other processing operations following
the pausing;
First, Wiese in combination with Chowdhury discloses pausing the copying
in response to a user requesting a pause operation from a user interface. Wiese
discloses that [i]f it is determined that a task has been initiated, the file transfer
option is suspended, and a computer resource is yielded to accomplish the user
initiated task. Wiese at 2:40-42 (EX1004). Tasks include opening a window,
moving a window, entering data through the keyboard, expanding a pull-down
menu. Id. at 6:37-39. A POSITA would have understood these tasks to be user
initiated tasks. EX1003 at 44. Wiese describes that [i]f it is determined that the
user has initiated such a task, the file transfer operation yields the CPU 105 to
process the user initiated task. Wiese at 6:39-41 (EX1004). Wiese thus discloses the
claimed pausing the copying in response to a user initiated task.
Chowdhury discloses that system efficiency and system speed would be
greatly increased by providing a user with the option to pause or terminate a video
file transfer before the transfer has totally completed. Chowdhury at 1:47-50
(EX1005). Chowdhury describes that a PAUSE call 407 may be invoked to
pause the transfer of a video file. Id. at 5:57-60. Chowdhurys PAUSE function is
34
an application programming interface (API) function responsive to user input
through a user interface. EX1003 at 48-50. Chowdhury thus discloses the claimed
pausing the copying in response to a user requesting a pause operation from a user
interface.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to integrate Chowdhurys teaching
that a user can directly pause a file transfer with Wieses approach to suspending a
file transfer, allowing a user to free computer resources for reasons not associated
with a user initiated action, such as at times of high network bandwidth usage or for
a pre-scheduled data back-up process. EX1003 at 59,65. Wiese provides
motivation and reasons for the combination, at least by seeking to improve the
computer systems ability to respond to user initiated operations without
compromising file transfer performance. Wiese at 2:29-31 (EX1004). A POSITA
would have been motivated to combine Wiese and Chowdhury at least because: 1)
both references are directed to file transfer responsive to user action; and 2) adding
Chowdhurys PAUSE and PLAY functions into Wieses file transfer would make
Wieses file transfer more responsive to user input and provide a user with greater
control. EX1003 at 63-65. Such a pause button would be easy to use and intuitive.
Id. at 64.
Second, Wiese discloses the recited computer system is available for other
processing operations following the pausing. A computer system that is available
35
for other processing operations is construed to be a computer system in which at
least a substantial portion of one or more resources of the computer system, such as
a processor, memory, or network resources, that are being used by the copy operation
are freed from the copy operation to be used to carry out a task other than the copy
operation. See V.A., supra. Wiese discloses this limitation as properly construed.
Wieses yielding of the CPU allows resources of Wieses computer system to be used
to carry out a task (i.e., the user initiated task) other than the copy operation. EX1003
at 44. Wieses yielding of the CPU makes Wieses computer system available for
other processing operations.
e) reading a second data portion from the source file, in

response to the user requesting a resume operation;
f) writing the second data portion to the target file.
Wiese in combination with Chowdhury discloses reading a second data
portion and writing the second data portion. Wiese discloses that when the
task initiated by the user is completed, the file transfer operation resumes. Wiese
at 6:63-65 (EX1004). Wiese thus describes resuming a file transfer in response to a
resume operation, where the resume operation is the completion of the user initiated
task. EX1003 at 44.
Wieses file transfer involves a read process 210 [that] proceeds by reading
the one or more files from the source location and a write process 220 [that]
proceeds by writing the one or more files to the destination location. Wiese at
36
3:64-65, 4:6-7 (EX1004). Wieses read and write processes involve reading portions
of a file from a source location and writing the portions of the file to a destination
location. EX1003 at 43. When Wieses file transfer is resumed, the reading of
portions of a file from a source location and writing of the portions of the file to a
destination location are thus resumed. Wiese thus discloses the claimed reading a
second data portion from the source file in response to a resume operation and
writing the second data portion to the target file.
Chowdhury, referring to Figure 4, supra, discloses that [t]o resume 411 from
a pause 409, the PLAY API function call is made. Chowdhury at 6:1-3.
Chowdhurys PLAY function is an API function responsive to user input through a
user interface. EX1003 at 48-50. Chowdhury thus discloses the claimed reading
a second data portion from the source file in response to the user requesting a
resume operation (emphasis added).
It would have been obvious for a POSITA to integrate Chowdhurys PLAY
function that allows a user to resume a paused file transfer with Wieses approach to
resuming a file transfer when a user initiated task is completed. EX1003 at 59,62-
66. See V.A.4 and V.A.5(d), supra. A POSITA would have been motivated to make
this combination at least because: 1) both references are directed to file transfer
responsive to user action; and 2) adding Chowdhurys PLAY function into Wieses
file transfer would make Wieses file transfer more responsive to user input and
37
provide a user with greater control. Id. at 63-64. Wiese motivates the combination
by seeking to improve the computer systems ability to respond to user initiated
operations without compromising file transfer performance. Wiese at 2:29-31
(EX1004).
a) The method as described in claim 1 wherein the first

and second data portions each include one or more blocks of
data.
Wieses file information is transferred as a continuous stream of data via one
or more data blocks herein referred to as chunks. Wiese at 4:50-52 (EX1004).
a) The method as described in claim 1 wherein the source

file resides on a remote computer system and wherein the
target file resides on the computer system, the method further
comprising transmitting the first and second data portions
across a computer network, the computer network connecting
the remote computer system and the computer system.
Wieses source location 215 may be, for example, a hard disk internal to
the computer system. Wiese at 3:65-67 (EX1004). Wieses destination location
may be, for example, a memory location in the network server 120. Id. at 4:7-9.
Wiese discloses two physically separated computer systems (a computer system and
a network server), and thus Wiese teaches the recitations the source file resides on
a remote computer system (the computer system, e.g., 100 of Wieses Figure 1,
38
supra) and the target file resides on the computer system (the network server, e.g.,
120 of Wieses Figure 1, supra).
The ability to transfer (i.e., copy and/or move) files from a source location
to a destination location within the computer system or computer network can
be accomplished more efficiently. Id. at Abstract (emphasis added). Referring to
Wieses Figures 1 and 2, supra, for data to be read from a first computer system and
written to a network server 120 within a computer network, the data must be
transmitted across a computer network connecting the computer systems. EX1003
at 46. Wiese thus discloses the claimed transmitting the first and second data
portions across a computer network, the computer network connecting the remote
computer system and the computer system.
a) The method as described in claim 1 further

comprising: selecting a block size, the block size
corresponding to the size of the first and second data
portions.
Wiese discloses that the file information is transferred as a continuous stream
of data via one or more data blocks herein referred to as chunks. Wiese at 4:50-
52 (EX1004). Wiese also discloses that the optimum chunk size may be determined
as C=(F*a*b) where C represents chunk size in bytes; F represents the file size
in bytes, a represents overhead in seconds, and b represents throughput of the system
39
in bytes/second. Id. at 5:53-58. Wiese thus discloses the claimed selecting a block
size.
Wieses files are transferred in portions, where each portion that is transferred
includes one or more of the chunks. EX1003 at 47. Thus, Wiese discloses the
claimed the block size corresponding to the size of the first and second data
portions.
a) The method as described in claim 8 wherein the

selecting further includes: testing a transmission speed
between a source file location corresponding with the source
file and a target file location corresponding with the target
file.
Wieses optimum chunk size may be determined based on factors including
the file size, the overhead, and the throughput of the system in bytes/second. Wiese
at 5:53-58 (EX1004). The throughput of the system corresponds to the transmission
speed. EX1003 at 47.
Wiese discloses that the system throughput capacity is measured. Wiese at
5:61 (EX1004). Wiese thus discloses measuring the system throughput capacity,
which corresponds to the claimed testing a transmission speed.
a) A computer system comprising:

To the extent the preamble is deemed limiting, Wiese discloses a general or
personal computer system. Wiese at 3:22 (EX1004); see also Id. at Abstract.
40
b) one or more processors;
Wieses computer system includes a central processing unit (CPU). Wiese
at 3:24-25 (EX1004); see also Id. at 4:39-40.
c) one or more nonvolatile storage devices accessible by

the one or more processors, wherein the nonvolatile storage
devices each include a plurality of locations for storing files;
Wiese discloses, referring to Figure 2, supra, that the read process reads one
or more files to be transferred from the source location 215, which may be, for
example, a hard disk internal to the computer system 100. Wiese at 3:64-67
(EX1004); see also Id. at 3:26-29. Wieses hard disk is a nonvolatile storage device
that includes a plurality of locations for storing files. EX1003 at 42.
d) a data file stored at a first location on the nonvolatile

storage device;
Referring to Figure 2, supra, Wieses one or more files are stored at the
source location 215, which may be, for example, a hard disk internal to the computer
system 100. Wiese at 3:64-67 (EX1004); see also Id. at 1:8-11.
e) a copy tool, the copy tool including:
Wiese discloses the ability to transfer (i.e., copy and/or move) files from a
source location to a destination location within the computer system. Wiese at
Abstract (EX1004). [A] file transfer operation may involve a file copy operation
various aspects of the present invention described herein below are to be
implemented in software, using standard software programming techniques, and that
41
the software is stored in memory associated with or internal to the computer system.
Id. at 3:39-42.
f) means for reading a first portion of the data file;
g) means for writing the first portion to a new file, the

new file located at a second location;
Wiese discloses the recited functions. The recited functions are reading a first
portion of the data file and writing the first portion to a new file, the new file
located at a second location. See V.B.(1) and (2), supra. Wiese discloses these
functions. See VI.A.(5)(b) and (c), supra.
Wiese discloses the corresponding structure (see V.B.(1) and (2), supra), i.e.,
a general purpose computer system (computer system 100 in Wieses Figure 1,
supra) programmed to read a first portion of a data file and to write the first portion
to a new file, the new file located at a second location. See VI.A.(5)(b) and (c), supra;
Wiese at 3:21-47 (EX1004). Wieses file transfer read[s] one or more files from the
source location and writes the one or more files to the destination location.
Id.at 3:67-4:1, 4:6-7. Wiese thus teaches that the new file is located at a second
location.
h) means for pausing the copy tool in response to a user

request from a user interface, wherein the computer system is
available for other processing operations following the
pausing;
Wiese and Chowdhury render obvious the recited function. The recited
function is pausing the copy tool in response to a user request from a user interface.
42
See V.B.(3), supra. Wiese and Chowdhury render obvious this function. See
VI.A.(5)(d), supra.
Te combination of Chowdhurys PAUSE function into the file transfer
performed by Wieses computer system 100 (see Wieses Figure 1, supra) renders
obvious the corresponding structure (see V.B.(3), supra), i.e., a general purpose
computer system programmed to pause the copy tool in response to a user request
from a user interface. See VI.A.(5)(d), supra; Wiese at 3:21-47 (EX1004). Wiese
discloses that the computer system is available for other processing operations
following the pausing. See VI.A.(5)(d), supra.
i) means for resuming the copy tool in response to a user

request;
Wiese and Chowdhury render obvious the recited function. The recited
function is resuming the copy tool in response to a user request. See V.B.(4), supra.
Wiese and Chowdhury render obvious this function. See VI.A.(5)(e), supra.
The combination of Chowdhurys PLAY functionality into the file transfer
performed by Wieses computer system 100 (see Wieses Figure 1, supra) renders
obvious the corresponding structure (see V.B.(4), supra), i.e., a general purpose
computer system programmed to resume the copy tool in response to a user request.
See VI.A.(5)(E); Wiese at 3:21-47 (EX1004); Chowdhury at 6:1-3 ([t]o resume 411
from a pause 409, the PLAY API function call is made.).
43
j) means for reading a second portion of the data file in
response to the resuming; and
k) means for writing the second portion to the second

location.
Wiese discloses the recited functions. The recited functions are reading a
second portion of the data file in response to the resuming and writing the first
portion to the second location, respectively. See V.B.(5) and (6), supra. Wiese
discloses these functions. See VI.A.(5)(e) and (f), supra.
Wiese discloses the corresponding structure (see V.B.(5) and (6), supra), i.e.,
a general purpose computer system (computer system 100 in Wieses Figure 1,
supra) programmed to read a second portion of the data file in response to the
resuming and to write the second portion to the second location. See VI.A.(5)(e) and
(f), supra; Wiese at 3:21-47 (EX1004). Wieses file transfer read[s] one or more
files from the source location and writes the one or more files to the destination
location. Id. at 3:67-4:1, 4:6-7. Wiese thus teaches that the new file is located at a
second location.
44
a) The computer system as described in claim 10 further

comprising: a remote computer system and the computer
system interconnected with a computer network, the remote
computer system and the computer system each including a
nonvolatile storage device, one or more processors, and a
network interface, wherein the first location is included in the
nonvolatile storage device connected to the remote computer
system and wherein the second location is included in the
nonvolatile storage device connected to the computer system;
and
Referring to VI.A.(7), supra, Wiese discloses this limitation. Wiese discloses
a remote computer system (e.g., computer system 100 of Figure 1, supra), and a
computer system (e.g., network server 120 of Figure 1, supra) interconnected with
a computer network. Wiese discloses that the ability to transfer...files from a
source location to a destination location within the computer network can be
accomplished. Wiese at Abstract (EX1004) (emphasis added).
Each of Wieses computer systems includes a nonvolatile storage device, a
processor (e.g., a CPU), and a network interface. See Id. at 3:24-37 (the computer
system actually employs different types of memory, the computer system 100
includes a central processing unit (CPU), the computer system interfaces to the
network); 3:37-40 (The present invention involves the transfer operations with a
computer system, such as the computer system 100 illustrated in FIG. 1.).
Wiese discloses that the first location is included in the nonvolatile storage
device connected to the remote computer system. See, e.g., Id. at 3:64-67 (the
45
source location may be, for example, a hard disk internal to the computer system
100.). Wiese discloses that the second location is included in the nonvolatile storage
device connected to the computer system. See, e.g., Id. at 4:5-10 (the destination
location may be, for example, a memory location in the network server 120.).
b) means for transmitting the first and second portions

from the remote computer system to the computer system.
Wiese discloses the recited function. The recited function is transmitting the
first and second portions from the remote computer system to the computer system.
See V.B.(7), supra. Wiese discloses this function. See VI.A.(7), supra.
Wiese discloses the corresponding structure, which is a computer network. See
V.B.(7), supra. Wieses two physically separated computer systems (e.g., a computer
system and a network server) are connected by a computer network. See VI.A.(7),
supra; EX1003 at 46.
a) The computer system as described in claim 10 further

comprising: means for selecting a block size;
Wiese discloses the recited function. The recited function is selecting a block
size. See V.B.(10), supra. Wiese discloses this function. See VI.A.(8), supra.
Wiese discloses the corresponding structure, i.e., a general purpose computer
programmed to select a block size. See V.B.(10), supra. Wiese discloses a computer
system that can select a block size. See VI.A.(8), supra; Wiese at 3:22-47.
46
b) wherein each of the means for reading includes means
for reading one or more blocks; and
c) wherein each of the means for writing includes means

for writing one or more blocks.
Wiese discloses the recited functions. The recited functions are reading one or
more blocks and writing one or more blocks. See V.B.(11) and (12), supra. Wiese
discloses that the file information is transferred as a continuous stream of data via
one or more data blocks herein referred to as chunks. Wiese at 4:50-52 (EX1004).
Wieses file transfer involves a read process and a write process. See VI.A.(5)(b) and
VI.A.(5)(c), Wiese at 3:49-51 (EX1004). Wieses transferring of data via one or more
blocks thus involves reading and writing one or more blocks. Wiese thus discloses
the recited functions.
Wiese discloses the corresponding structure (see V.B.(11) and (12), supra),
i.e., a general purpose computer system (computer system 100 in Wieses Figure 1,
supra) programmed to read and write one or more blocks, respectively. Wiese
discloses a computer system that transfers data (i.e., reads and writes data) via one
or more data blocks. See, e.g., Wiese at 2:22-47, 3:21-51 (EX1004). Claim 15 is
obvious over Wiese and Chowdhury
d) wherein the selecting further includes testing a

transmission speed between the first location and the second
location.
Wiese discloses this limitation. See VI.A(9), supra.
47
a) A computer program product in a computer usable

medium for copying data from a source file to a target file on
a computer system, comprising:
To the extent the preamble is deemed limiting, Wiese discloses the ability to
transfer (i.e., copy and/or move) files from a source location to a destination location
within the computer system. Wiese at Abstract (EX1004). Wiese states that various
aspects of the present invention are to be implemented in software, using standard
software programming techniques. Id. at 3:43-45.
b) means for reading a first data portion from the source

file;
c) means for writing the first data portion to the target

file;
d) means for pausing the copying in response to a user

requesting a pause operation from a user interface, wherein
the computer system is available for other processing
operations following the pausing;
e) means for reading a second data portion from the

source file in response to the user requesting a resume
operation; and
f) means for writing the second data portion to the target

file.
Wiese and Chowdhury render these limitations obvious. See VI.A.(5) and
VI.A.(10), supra.
48
a) wherein the source file resides on a remote computer

system and wherein the target file resides on the computer
system, the computer operable medium further comprising:
means for transmitting the first and second data portions
across a computer network, the computer network connecting
the remote computer system and the computer system.
Wiese and Chowdhury render this limitation obvious. See VI.A.(7) and
VI.A.(11), supra.
a) The computer program product as described in claim

16 further comprising: means for selecting a block size, the
block size corresponding to the size of the first and second
data portions.
Wiese and Chowdhury render this limitation obvious. See VI.A.(8) and
VI.A.(12), supra.
B. Ground II: Claims 3-5, 12, 13, and 17 are unpatentable

under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Wiese in view of Chowdhury,
Miller, and Day
1. Overview of Miller
Miller describes a method for transmit[ting] data (e.g., a file). Miller at
Abstract (EX1007). The server logically breaks each file to be transferred into
blocks of frames, starts the transfer by sending the first frame of the first block
[and] continues sending the frames of the file until the complete file has been sent.
Id. at 6:52-53, 7:9-15.
49
The server maintains various information about the transfer in the form
of data structures or lists. The server maintains and uses this information to record
and determine the status of the file transfer. Id. at 8:3-8. The information includes
a frame data structure which indicates all selective rejects on individual frames
from all clients, including the block and frame number for each of the missed
frames. Id.at 9:1-8; see also Table 2. After the server has sent the entire file once,
the server would then pass through the frame status information and resend only the
frames listed therein. Id.at 9:19-21; see also EX1003 at 54.
2. Overview of Day
Day describes a protocol for access[ing] non-local files. Day at 2 (EX1008).
Days protocol allow[s] processes to specify to the remote file system where in the
file they wish the next operation to start and how much data to move. Id. at 2.
A file pointer represents an index or address within the file. Id. at 4. A
READ command instructs the server to move as many bytes as specified from
the server to the user. The values the argument may take on are <decimal number>
and ALL. ALL is interpreted as all data from the present position of the file pointer
to the end-of file. Id. at 6; see also EX1003 at 57.
50
3. Claim 3 is obvious over Wiese, Chowdhury, Miller, and Day

pausing further includes: writing an index to a storage area,
the index including a pointer to the second data portion
within the source file.
Millers frame data structure indicates all selective rejects on individual
frames from all clients and includes block and frame numbers for each missed
frame. Miller at 9:1-3 (EX1007); see also Table 2. The frame data structure is
maintained by the server. Miller at 8:3-4 (EX1007). Millers frame data structure
on the server corresponds to the claimed index written to a storage area, and the
block and frame numbers for each missed frame are indicative of the recited second
data portion within the source file. EX1003 at 55.
Day discloses a file pointer [that] represents an index or address within the
file. Day at 4 (EX1008).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to integrate Days pointer into
Millers frame data structure. EX1003 at 67. A POSITA would have written Days
pointer into Millers frame data structure to augment the block and frame number,
facilitating efficient data transmission. Id. at 67. A POSITA would have been
motivated to make this combination at least because 1) both references are directed
to file transmission and 2) adding Days pointer into Millers frame data structure
would enable direct identification of the portions of Millers file requiring
retransmission. Id. at 67. Miller motivates the combination by stating that the block
51
and frame number in the frame data structure indicate[] that a particular frame of a
particular block needs to be retransmitted. Miller at 9:15-17 (EX1007). The
incorporation of Days pointer into Millers frame data structure would explicitly
identify the frames needing retransmission. EX1003 at 67.
A POSITA would have integrated Millers frame data structure with Wieses
file transfer so that when a transfer is suspended, indicators of non-transferred
portions of the file are stored in the frame data structure. When the transfer is
resumed, Millers frame data structure is accessed to determine from where to
resume the transfer. EX1003 at 68. A POSITA would have been motivated to make
this combination at least because 1) both references are directed to file transmission
and 2) Millers frame data structure would enable accurate tracking of non-
transferred portions of Wieses file. EX1003 at 68. Wiese motivates the
combination by teaching that a transfer can be paused and resumed, and Millers
frame data structure facilitates resuming the transfer from the appropriate location.

writing an index to a storage area further includes: writing a
source file path name to the storage area; and writing a target
file path to a storage area.
Miller describes that the operator is enabled to maintain the list of
transmission file descriptors [and] transmission parameters. Miller at 13:46-48
(EX1007). A POSITA would have understood Millers transmission file descriptors
52
and transmission parameters to include a source file path name and a target file path.
EX1003 at 56. A POSITA would also have understood that writing Millers frame
data structure (which corresponds to the claimed index, see VI.B.(3), supra) to a
storage area would have included writing the list of transmission file descriptors and
transmission parameters to storage area, e.g., so that the source and target file path
associated with the transfer represented by the frame data structure can be identified.
Id.at 56.

reading a second data portion further comprises: reading the
index, source file path name, and target file path name from
the storage area.
Miller describes transmission file descriptors and transmission parameters
(which correspond to the claimed source file path name and a target file path,
respectively) written to the storage area. See VI.B.(4), supra. A POSITA would have
understood that to retransmit the blocks indicated by Millers frame data structure,
the transmission file descriptors and transmission parameters would be read from
the storage area to identify the source and target for retransmission. EX1003 at 56.
53
6. Claim 12 is obvious over Wiese, Chowdhury, Miller, and
Day
a) The computer system as described in claim 10 wherein
the means for pausing further includes: means for writing an
index to a storage area, the index including a pointer to the
second data portion within the data file.
The means for writing an index to a storage area is construed as a general
purpose computer programmed to write an index to a storage area. See V.B.(8),
supra. Miller discloses a computer system that can write an index to a storage area.
See VI.B.(3), supra.
Day discloses a file pointer. Day at 4 (EX1008). See VI.B.(2), supra.
Wiese, Chowdhury, Miller, and Day thus render this limitation obvious. See
VI.B.(3), supra.

Day
a) The computer system as described in claim 10 wherein
the means for resuming further includes: means for reading
an index from a storage area, the index including a pointer to
the second data portion within the data file.
The means for reading an index from a storage area are construed as a
general purpose computer programmed to read an index from a storage area. See
V.B.(9), supra. Miller discloses a computer system that can read an index from a
storage area. See VI.B.(5), supra. Day discloses an index including a pointer to the
second data portion within the data file. See VI.B.(2), supra.
54
Wiese, Chowdhury, Miller, and Day thus render this limitation obvious. See
VI.B.(2) and VI.B.(5), supra.

Day
a) The computer program product as described in claim
16 wherein the means for pausing further includes: means for
writing an index to a storage area, the index including a
pointer to the second data portion within the source file.
Wiese, Chowdhury, Miller, and Day render this limitation obvious. See
VI.B.(3) and VI.B.(6), supra.
C. Ground III: Claim 7 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.

103(a) as obvious over Wiese in view of Chowdhury and Raucci
1. Overview of Raucci
Raucci describes Netscape Navigator, which has a progress bar you can use
to track Web document transfers. Raucci at 10 (EX1009).
2. Claim 7 is obvious over Wiese, Chowdhury, and Raucci
a) The method as described in claim 1 further

comprising: displaying an amount completed, the amount
completed showing a total amount of data written to the target
file.
Rauccis progress bar (Raucci at 10 (EX1009)) displays an amount completed,
showing a total amount of data written to the target file. EX1003 at 58.
A POSITA would have found it obvious to integrate Rauccis progress bar
into Wieses file transfer to display information about the progress of the file transfer.
A display showing the total amount of data written allows a user to make a decision
55
about whether to pause the transfer to make the computer system available for other
processing operations. EX1003 at 69.
D. Ground IV: Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.

103(a) as obvious over Romrell in view of Chowdhury
1. Overview of Romrell
Romrell discloses systems and methods for transparently recovering from a
communications disruption during a transmission of data from a source network
device to a destination network device. Romrell at 2:10-13 (EX1006). Romrells
approach includes determining a portion of the data stream that was successfully
received by the destination computer before the transmission was disrupted. Id. at
1:55-57. Transmission can be resumed from a point in the data stream immediately
after the successfully received portion. Id. at 1:57-59.
Romrells approach is implemented in the system of Figure 1, infra. The
system includes a client device 12 having a browser 32 and external network
devices, such as content servers 8. Id. at 2:13-15. The client device 12 includes a
local proxy 48 that is configured to receive all network traffic from or to client device
12, and a remote proxy 36 is arranged to receive all network traffic from or to
client device 12. Id. at 2:16-20. Romrells client device 12 is coupled to the remote
proxy 36 via the local proxy 48, and the remote proxy 36 is coupled to the content
servers 8. Id. at 2:20-24.
56
Referring to Figure 3, infra, when a request to transmit a data stream is
received, the network device determines whether the request corresponds to a
previously disrupted transmission (Step 30). Id. at 7:53-54. The previously
disrupted transmission can have been disrupted due to a failure of [a]
communications link or responsive to a user selecting a deferred continuation
option, (emphasis added) as discussed below. Id. at 7:67, 8:26-27. If the request to
corresponds to a previously disrupted transmission,
the network device determines what portion of the requested data

stream, if any, was successfully received by the destination
device before the disruption (Step 40). The network device may
then set a transmission start point to a position corresponding to
an offset into the requested data stream equal to the successfully
received portion (Step 50). Transmission of the data stream to
the destination device then begins from the start point (Step 70).
Id. at 7:53-63.
57
In Romrells deferred continuation option, the user is provided with an
interface to checkpoint downloads at any time, not just because of a communications
failure. Id. at 8:23-26. If the user selects the deferred continuation option during a
particular download, local proxy 48 checkpoints the connection by storing the
partially-downloaded data object (deferred for later continuation). Id. at 8:26-30.
By selecting deferred continuation, the user can pause the download. EX1003 at
58
52-53. When the download is paused, the partially-downloaded data object is
stored so the download can be resumed later. Id. at 52-53.
Selecting deferred continuation allows the user to, for example, browse
elsewhere or disconnect until a later time during the paused download. Romrell at
8:30-32 (EX1006).
Romrells interface further provides the user with the ability to choose when
to continue the deferred download. Id. at 8:32-34. [U]pon resumption local proxy
48 issues an enhanced request to remote proxy 36, causing remote proxy 36 to
resume the download from an offset equal to the number of bytes previously stored
by local proxy 48. Id. at 8:38-42. The user can indicate when the download is to be
resumed.
2. The Combination of Romrell and Chowdhury
A POSITA would have found it obvious to integrate Chowdhurys disclosure
of pausing a file transfer responsive to user request (see VI.A.(2), supra) with
Romrells data transmission process. EX1003 at 70-75.
In Romrells data transmission process, a user can pause the download of a
data object. During the pause, the user can browse elsewhere or disconnect until a
later time. Romrell at 8:30-32 (EX1006). Romrells user can choose when to
continue the deferred download. Id. at 8:30-32. Chowdhurys PAUSE and PLAY
functions allow a user to control[] the identity, sequence, and flow of file transfers.
59
Chowdhury at 2:3-4 (EX1005). For instance, Chowdhurys user can pause the
transfer of a video file and can resume from a pause. Id. at 5:60, 6:1-2.
Both Chowdhury and Romrell disclose data transmission processes that can
be paused and resumed responsive to user action. A POSITA would have found it
obvious to integrate Chowdhurys PLAY and PAUSE functions into Romrells data
transmission process to produce an integrated file transfer system that would enable
a user to explicitly request that a download be temporarily paused so the user could
browse elsewhere during the pause. EX1003 at 70,74.
A POSITA would have found it obvious to integrate Chowdhurys PAUSE
function with Romrells local proxy. Id. at 71. In Romrells deferred continuation
option, local proxy 48 checkpoints the connection by storing the partially-
downloaded data object (deferred for later continuation) and returns an error to
browser 32. Romrell at 8:28-30 (EX1006). A POSITA would have integrated
Chowdhurys PAUSE function, which is called to pause the transfer of a file,
(Chowdhury at 5:60 (EX1005)), with Romrells local proxy to obtain a system in
which Romrells local proxy checkpoints the connection when Chowdhurys
PAUSE function is called. EX1003 at 71.
A POSITA also would have integrated Chowdhurys PLAY function with
Romrells local proxy. Id. at 71. Romrells interface further provides the user with
the ability to choose when to continue the deferred download, and upon
60
resumption local proxy 48 issues an enhanced request to remote proxy 36, causing
remote proxy 36 to resume the download. Romrell at 8:32-34, 38-40 (EX1006). A
POSITA would have found it obvious to integrate Chowdhurys PLAY function,
which is called to resume from a pause (see Chowdhury at 6:1-2 (EX1005)), with
Romrells local proxy to obtain a system in which Romrells local proxy causes the
remote proxy to resume the download when Chowdhurys PLAY function is called.
EX1003 at 71.
3. Motivation to Combine Romrell and Chowdhury
A POSITA would be motivated to combine Romrell and Chowdhury at least
because 1) both references are directed to data transmission processes that are
responsive to user action and 2) adding Chowdhurys PAUSE and PLAY functions
into Romrells data transmission process would provide Romrells data transmission
process with an explicit interface for pausing and resuming data transfer. EX1003 at
72.
Romrells interface enables a user to checkpoint downloads at any time and
to choose when to continue the deferred download. Romrell at 8:25, 32-33
(EX1006). Chowdhurys PAUSE and PLAY functions allow a user to explicitly
request that a file transfer be paused or resumed. The integration of Chowdhurys
PAUSE and PLAY functions into Romrells user interface would make Romrells
61
user interface explicitly responsive to a user request to pause or resume a file
transfer. EX1003 at 72,74.
Because both Chowdhury and Romrell describe file transfer processes that are
responsive to user actions, a POSITA would have been motivated to integrate
Chowdhurys PLAY and PAUSE functions into Romrells data transmission
process. Id. at 72,74. A user interface that explicitly presents pause and play
functionality (in contrast to an option referred to as deferred continuation) reduces
user confusion and makes clear that the user is in control of pausing and resuming
the transfer process. Id. at 72,74. The combination of Romrell and Chowdhury 1)
combines prior art elements (Chowdhurys PLAY and PAUSE functions with
Romrells approach to downloading a data object) 2) according to known methods
(e.g., by configuring Romrells local proxy to be responsive to Chowdhurys
functions) and 3) would have yielded a predictable result (a download process
responsive to user requests to pause and resume the download, in which user can
browse elsewhere during the pause. Id. at 73. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex
Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 415-16 (2007).
A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in integrating the
teachings of Chowdhury into the teachings of Romrell given that both references are
directed to user actions enabling pausing and resuming of file transfer. Id. at 73.
62
4. Claim 1 is obvious over Romrell and Chowdhury
a) A method for copying data from a source file to a

target file on a computer system, said method comprising
To the extent the preamble is deemed limiting, Romrell discloses a method for
transmission of data from a source network device to a destination network device.
Romrell at 2:12-13 (EX1006).
b) reading a first data portion from the source file;
c) writing the first data portion to the target file;

Romrell discloses transmission of data from a source network device to a
destination network device, e.g., for a file to be downloaded by a server. Romrell
at 1:43-44, 2:12-13 (EX1006). Romrells data transmission process includes a
request for a network object generated by a client device or a reply to such a request
provided by a content server device. Id. at 2:47-49.
When a network object, e.g., a file, is downloaded, data is read from a source
file and written to a destination file. EX1003 at 51. Romrells download process
thus includes reading ... data from the source file and writing ... data to the
target file, as recited in claim 1.
A partially-downloaded data object is stored when the download of the data
object is paused. Romrell at 8:29 (EX1006). That is, Romrell describes that a portion
of the data object can be downloaded. That downloaded portion of Romrells data
object corresponds to the first data portion of claim 1. EX1003 at 52,53.
63
In describing that a portion of a data object can be downloaded, Romrell thus
teaches the claimed reading a first data portion from the source file and writing
the first data portion to the target file.
d) pausing the copying in response to a user requesting a

pause operation from a user interface, wherein the computer
system is available for other processing operations following
the pausing;
First, Romrell in combination with Chowdhury discloses pausing the
copying.in response to a user requesting a pause operation from a user interface In
Romrells deferred continuation option, the user is provided with an interface to
checkpoint downloads at any time, not just because of a communications failure,
upon which the local proxy 48 checkpoints the connection by storing the partially-
downloaded data object (deferred for later continuation). Romrell at 8:24-30
(EX1006). That is, a user can checkpoint, or request a pause of, a download through
the interface. EX1003 at 52,53. Romrell thus teaches the claimed pausing the
copying in response to a user requesting a pause operation from a user interface.
To the extent that Romrell is viewed as lacking explicit disclosure,
Chowdhury also teaches the claimed pausing the copying in response to a user
requesting a pause operation from a user interface. During Chowdhurys file
transfer, a PAUSE call 407 may be invoked to pause the transfer of a video file.
Chowdhury at 5:57-60 (EX1005). Chowdhurys PAUSE is an API function
responsive to user input through a user interface. EX1003 at 48-50. Chowdhury
64
thus discloses pausing the copying in response to a user requesting a pause
operation from a user interface.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to integrate Chowdhurys disclosure
of pausing a file transfer responsive to user request with Romrells approach to
pausing a download and allowing a user to browse elsewhere during the pause. See
VI.D(2), supra; EX1003 at 70-75. A POSITA would be motivated to combine
Chowdhurys PAUSE functionality into Romrells data transmission process. See
VI.D.(3), supra. Romrell motivates the combination by teaching that a user can
select[] the deferred continuation option to cause a download to be paused and
deferred for later continuation. Romrell at 8:27-30 (EX1006). Chowdhury teaches
that a user can explicitly request to pause the transfer of a file. Chowdhury at 5:60
(EX1005).
Second, Romrell discloses that the recited "computer system is available for
other processing operations following the pausing." Romrell also describes that
deferring a download allows the user to, for example, browse elsewhere or
disconnect until a later time. Romrell at 8:24-32 (EX1006). A computer system that
is available for other processing operations is interpreted to be a computer system
in which at least a substantial portion of one or more resources of the computer
system, such as a processor, memory, or network resources, that are being used by
the copy operation are freed from the copy operation to be used to carry out a task
65
other than the copy operation. See V.A., supra. Romrells computer system, which
allows a user to browse elsewhere while a download is deferred, is available for
other processing operations. Romrell thus discloses the claimed wherein the
computer system is available for other processing operations following the pausing.
e) reading a second data portion from the source file in

response to the user requesting a resume operation, and
f) writing the second data portion to the target file.

Romrells download includes reading data from the source file and
writing data to the target file. See VI.D.(4)(b) and (c), supra; EX1003 at
51.
Romrell describes storing a partially-downloaded data object when the
download is paused. Romrell at 8:29 (EX1006). The download of the partially-
downloaded data object can be resumed from an offset equal to the number of bytes
previously stored. Id. at 8:41-42. That is, when the download resumes, another
portion of the data object is downloaded. That other portion of the data object
corresponds to the second data portion of claim 1.
In describing that a download of a partially-downloaded object can be
resumed, Romrell teaches the claimed reading a second data portion from the
source file and writing the second data portion to the target file. EX1003 at
52,53.
66
Romrells interface further provides the user with the ability to choose when
to continue the deferred download. The user may be given the option of resuming
the download on demand. Romrell at 8:32-35 (EX1006). Romrell thus teaches that
the download can be resumed in response to the user requesting a resume
operation, as recited in claim 1.
VII. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Challenged Claims of the 229 Patent are
unpatentable. The Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review to cancel
these claims.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: September 27, 2017 /C. Eric Schulman/

C. Eric Schulman
Registration No. 43,350
Jonathan Stroud
Ashraf Fawzy
Attorneys for Petitioner
67
Table of Exhibits for U.S. Patent 6,564,229 Petition for Inter Partes Review
Exhibit Description
1001 U.S. Patent 6,564,229
1002 File History of U.S. Patent 6,564,229
1003 Declaration of Dr. Ethan Miller (Miller Decl.)
U.S. Patent 6,108,707 (filed May 8, 1998; patented August

1004
22, 2000) (Wiese)
U.S. Patent 6,026,439 (filed October 28, 1997; patented

1005
February 15, 2000) (Chowdhury)
U.S. Patent 6,396,805 (filed December 30, 1997, patented

1006
May 28, 2002) (Romrell)
U.S. Patent 5,553,083 (filed January 19, 1995; patented

1007
September 3, 1996) (Miller)
J. Day, A Proposed File Access Protocol Specification

1008
(RFC 520, June 1973) (Day)
R. Raucci. A Windows NTTM Guide to the Web, Chapter

1009 2, Springer Science+Business Media, New York, 1997.
(Raucci)
U.S. Patent 5,914,941 (filed May 25, 1995, patented June

1010
22, 1999) (Janky)
1011 Declaration of Jessica Coral Sheldon-Hess
1012 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Ethan Miller (Miller CV)
Scan of the front matter and chapter two of A Windows

NT Guide to the Web: covering browsers, servers, and
1013 related software, by Richard Raucci, published by Springer
in 1997, belonging to the University of California Southern
Regional Library Facility.
68
S. Bradner, The Internet Standards Process Revision 3
1014
(RFC 2026, October 1996)
D. Wood, A cable-bus protocol architecture (Proceeding

1015 SIGCOMM 79 Proceedings of the sixth symposium on data
communications, November 27-29, 1979)
69
CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR 42.24(d)
Under the provisions of 37 CFR 42.24(d), the undersigned hereby certifies
that the word count for the foregoing Petition for Inter Partes Review totals 13,245,
which is less than the 14,000 allowed under 37 CFR 42.24(a)(i).
Respectfully submitted,
/C. Eric Schulman/

Dated: September 27, 2017 C. Eric Schulman
Jonathan Stroud
Ashraf Fawzy
Attorneys for Petitioner
70
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to 37 CFR 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b), the undersigned
certifies that on September 27, 2017, a complete and entire copy of this Petition for
Inter Partes Review and all supporting exhibits were provided via Federal Express,
to the Patent Owner by serving the correspondence address of record as follows:
Uniloc USA Inc.

Legacy Town Center
7160 Dallas Parkway, Suite 380
Plano TX 75024
/Edward G. Faeth/
Edward G. Faeth
60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(202) 626-6420
71

Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-02148, (PTAB Sept. 27, 2017)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unified Patents Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-02148, (PTAB Sept. 27, 2017)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOCKET NO.

Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF

Unified Patents, Inc. (Unified Patents or Petitioner) certifies it is the real

this petition, or the conduct of any ensuing trial.

Luxembourg S.A. (Uniloc or Patent Owner). The 229 Patent is asserted in at

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Square Enix, Inc., 2:17-cv-00302 (TXED);

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Nexon America, Inc., 2:17-cv-00276 (TXED);

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Big Fish Games, Inc., 2:17-cv-00172 (TXED);

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Ubisoft, Inc., 2:17-cv-00175 (TXED);

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., 2:17-cv-00305 (TXED);

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 2:17-cv-00375 (TXED);

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Big Fish Games, Inc., 2:17-cv-01183 (WAWD);

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 3:17-cv-02116 (TXND).

Lead Counsel: C. Eric Schulman (Registration No. 43,350)

Backup Counsel: Jonathan Stroud (Registration No. 72,518)

Backup Counsel: W. Karl Renner (Registration No. 41,265)

Backup Counsel: Ashraf A. Fawzy (Registration No. 67,914)

Fish & Richardson P.C.

3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street

Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at IPR43930-

0006IP1@fr.com (referencing No. 43930-0006IP1 and ccing

PTABInbound@fr.com, schulman@fr.com, axf-ptab@fr.com,

jonathan@unifiedpatents.com, and afawzy@unifiedpatents.com. C. Eric Schulman

can be reached directly at 650-839-5149.

II. Certification of Grounds for Standing

grounds identified in this Petition.

III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested

A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications

These references pertain to the grounds of unpatentability:1

(Wiese (EX1004)), prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).

(Chowdhury (EX1005)), prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).

(Romrell (EX1006)), prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).

(Miller (EX1007)), prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).

America Invents Act (AIA). Pre-AIA statutory framework applies.

1973) (Day (EX1008)), prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).2

6. R. Raucci. A Windows NTTM Guide to the Web, Chapter 2, Springer

Science+Business Media, New York, 1997 (Raucci (EX1009)), prior art

under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). 3

B. Grounds for Challenge

Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as unpatentable

under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) on a first set of grounds and cancellation of claim 1 as

unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) on a distinct ground.

The first set:

Ground I: Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-11, 14-16, 18, and 19 are unpatentable under

35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Wiese (EX1004) in view of Chowdhury

citation of the document. See EX1011 at 13-27.

103(a) as obvious over Wiese (EX1004) in view of Chowdhury (EX1005),

further in view of Miller (EX1007) and Day (EX1008);

Ground III: Claim 7 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious

over Wiese (EX1004) in view of Chowdhury (EX1005), further in view of Raucci

The distinct ground for claim 1:

Ground IV: Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious

over Romrell (EX1006) in view of Chowdhury (EX1005);

This Petition, supported by the accompanying declaration of Dr. Ethan Miller

(Miller Decl. (EX1003)), demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that

IV. Overview of the 229 Patent

A. Summary of the Alleged Invention

The 229 Patent describes a move/copy interface [that] is provided with a

command. 229 Patent at Abstract (EX1001).