{"cached_at":"2026-11-09T10:54:51.591551+00:00","cl_docket_id":"4162396","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","id":4162396,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cafc/","court_id":"cafc","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":null,"referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:25.904878-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:19.934582-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2015-04-30","date_terminated":"2016-01-15","date_last_filing":"2016-03-07","case_name_short":"","case_name":"In re: Clouding Corp.","case_name_full":"","slug":"in-re-clouding-corp","docket_number":"15-1615","docket_number_core":"15001615","docket_number_raw":"15-1615","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"","federal_dn_case_type":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"","cause":"","nature_of_suit":"","jury_demand":"","jurisdiction_type":"","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cafc.15-1615/gov.uscourts.cafc.15-1615.docket.xml","filepath_ia_json":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cafc.15-1615/gov.uscourts.cafc.15-1615.docket.json","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2018-09-30T00:00:00-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23990065/","id":23990065,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16217240/","attorney_id":16217240,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","docket_id":4162396,"role":null},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16217241/","attorney_id":16217241,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","docket_id":4162396,"role":null},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16217242/","attorney_id":16217242,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","docket_id":4162396,"role":null},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16217243/","attorney_id":16217243,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","docket_id":4162396,"role":null},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16217244/","attorney_id":16217244,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","docket_id":4162396,"role":null}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","docket_id":4162396,"name":"Intervenor","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:01.421532-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:01.421547-07:00","name":"MICHELLE K. LEE, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23990064/","id":23990064,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","docket_id":4162396,"name":"Appellee","date_terminated":"2015-06-03","extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:01.217723-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:01.217738-07:00","name":"RACKSPACE HOSTING, INC.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23990063/","id":23990063,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16217239/","attorney_id":16217239,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","docket_id":4162396,"role":null}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","docket_id":4162396,"name":"Appellant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:00.931578-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:00.931593-07:00","name":"In re: CLOUDING CORP.","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482077469/","id":482077469,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497844366/","id":497844366,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/37/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:04.325053-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:04.325066-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"37","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0130746061","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:04.287229-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:04.301622-07:00","date_filed":"2016-03-07","time_filed":null,"entry_number":37,"recap_sequence_number":"2016-03-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Mandate issued to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Service as of this date by Clerk of Court. [316164] [IW] [Entered: 03/07/2016 08:37 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482077468/","id":482077468,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497844365/","id":497844365,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/35/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:04.218080-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:04.218093-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"35","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:04.179696-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:04.191793-07:00","date_filed":"2016-01-08","time_filed":null,"entry_number":35,"recap_sequence_number":"2016-01-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Submitted after ORAL ARGUMENT by Tarek N. Fahmi for Clouding Corp. and Frances Lynch for Lee. Panel: Judge: Prost, Judge: Moore, Judge: Taranto. [301295] [JAB] [Entered: 01/08/2016 10:34 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482077467/","id":482077467,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497844364/","id":497844364,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/34/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:04.130028-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:04.130050-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"34","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:04.073808-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:04.084464-07:00","date_filed":"2015-12-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":34,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-12-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Response to oral argument order from the Intervenor Lee. designating Frances M. Lynch as arguing attorney. Designated time for argument: 15 minutes. Designated time for rebuttal: 0 minutes. Service of other counsel by Notice of Docket Activity from this entry. [296361] [Frances Lynch] [Entered: 12/15/2015 01:26 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482077466/","id":482077466,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497844363/","id":497844363,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/33/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:04.020846-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:04.020868-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"33","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.946665-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.977378-07:00","date_filed":"2015-12-14","time_filed":null,"entry_number":33,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-12-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Response to oral argument order from the Appellant Clouding Corp.. designating Tarek N. Fahmi as arguing attorney. Designated time for argument: 10 minutes. Designated time for rebuttal: 5 minutes. Service of other counsel by Notice of Docket Activity from this entry. [295715] [Tarek Fahmi] [Entered: 12/14/2015 10:34 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482077465/","id":482077465,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497844362/","id":497844362,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/32/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.921113-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.921128-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"32","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.841904-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.878442-07:00","date_filed":"2015-11-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":32,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-11-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE OF CALENDARING. Panel: 1601M. Case scheduled Jan 08, 2016 10:00 a.m. at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Howard T. Markey National Courts Building, 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, DC 20439), Courtroom 201. Response to oral argument order due: 12/15/2015. Counsel should check-in 30 minutes prior to the opening of the session. Please review the Oral Argument Order. [290531] THIS NOTICE APPLIES TO CASE(S): [15-5069, 15-1575, 15-1902, 15-1615] [JAB] [Entered: 11/20/2015 02:12 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482077464/","id":482077464,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497844361/","id":497844361,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/31/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.795381-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.795400-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"31","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.726831-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.757035-07:00","date_filed":"2015-09-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":31,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-09-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"6 paper copies of the appendix Brief [30] received from Appellant Clouding Corp.. [276871] [LAJ] [Entered: 10/01/2015 03:36 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482077463/","id":482077463,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497844360/","id":497844360,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/28/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.624510-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.624525-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"28","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.555221-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.572700-07:00","date_filed":"2015-09-24","time_filed":null,"entry_number":28,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-09-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"6 paper copies of the Reply Brief [27] received from Appellant Clouding Corp.. [275116] [LAJ] [Entered: 09/25/2015 09:17 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482077462/","id":482077462,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497844359/","id":497844359,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/25/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.460721-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.460742-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"25","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.415598-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.424702-07:00","date_filed":"2015-09-14","time_filed":null,"entry_number":25,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-09-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"6 paper copies of the intervenor Brief [24] received from Intervenor Lee. [271975] [LAJ] [Entered: 09/14/2015 03:43 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482077461/","id":482077461,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497844358/","id":497844358,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/17/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.158260-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.158280-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"17","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.107397-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.130222-07:00","date_filed":"2015-06-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":17,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-06-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Clerk's Note to the File: Intervenor brief is due 08/10/2015. [252683] [FMS] [Entered: 06/30/2015 04:18 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482077460/","id":482077460,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497844357/","id":497844357,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/16/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.072553-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.072566-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"16","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.023481-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.046631-07:00","date_filed":"2015-06-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":16,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-06-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"6 paper copies of the Opening Brief [15] received from Appellant Clouding Corp.. [252585] [JCS] [Entered: 06/30/2015 02:21 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/278625343/","id":278625343,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/284833059/","id":284833059,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/36/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2023-04-16T18:20:00.193744-07:00","date_modified":"2023-04-16T18:20:00.193755-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"36","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0130718412","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Opinion filed","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-04-16T18:20:00.186406-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:04.263703-07:00","date_filed":"2016-01-15","time_filed":"09:16:40","entry_number":36,"recap_sequence_number":"2016-01-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"OPINION and JUDGMENT filed. The judgment or decision is: Affirmed. (FCR 36). (For the Court: Prost,Chief Judge; Moore,Circuit Judge and Taranto,Circuit Judge). [303135] [JW] [Entered: 01/15/2016 09:16 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/1938027/","id":1938027,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/1439403/","id":1439403,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/30/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:30.198275-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-09T17:35:31.351552-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"30","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0130660253","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:30.190812-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.684155-07:00","date_filed":"2015-09-25","time_filed":null,"entry_number":30,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-09-25.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"APPENDIX FILED for Clouding Corp. [29]. Number of Pages: 157. Service: 09/25/2015 by email. Pursuant to ECF-10, filer is directed to file six copies of the brief in paper format. The paper copies of the brief should be received by the court on or before 10/05/2015. [276052] [SJ] [Entered: 09/29/2015 02:07 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/1938026/","id":1938026,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/1439402/","id":1439402,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/29/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:30.183089-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-09T17:35:31.329773-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"29","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0130658979","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:30.176655-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.660295-07:00","date_filed":"2015-09-25","time_filed":null,"entry_number":29,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-09-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"TENDERED from Appellant Clouding Corp.. Title: JOINT APPENDIX. Service: 09/25/2015 by email. [275478] [Tarek Fahmi] [Entered: 09/25/2015 05:54 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/1938025/","id":1938025,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/1439401/","id":1439401,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/27/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:30.169093-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-26T02:22:11.349375-07:00","sha1":"5388540475df89b291f9de5c19827a6b38ad1695","page_count":16,"file_size":245478,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cafc./gov.uscourts.cafc..27.0_37.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cafc./gov.uscourts.cafc..27.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case: 15-1615 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 09/21/2015\n\n\n\n\n 2015-1615\n\n \t\r \u00a0\n United\t\r \u00a0States\t\r \u00a0Court\t\r \u00a0of\t\r \u00a0Appeals\t\r \u00a0\n for\t\r \u00a0the\t\r \u00a0Federal\t\r \u00a0Circuit\t\r \u00a0\n\n \t\r \u00a0\n IN RE CLOUDING CORP.,\n\n Appellant\n\n\n\n\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2013-00519\n\n REPLY BRIEF\n\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\n\n\n\n\n FILED ON BEHALF OF: APPELLANT, CLOUDING CORP.\n\n Tarek N Fahmi\n ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC\n 333 W San Carlos St., Suite 200\n San Jose, CA 95110\n Telephone: (408) 799-0612\n tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com\n\n Counsel for Appellant\n\t\r \u00a0\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 09/21/2015\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\t\r \u00a0\n\n\nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii\n\t\r \u00a0\nI. SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 1\n\t\r \u00a0\nII. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 1\n\t\r \u00a0\n A. The Director Mischaracterizes Clouding\u2019s Argument Concerning\n Relevant Data. ......................................................................................................... 1\n\t\r \u00a0\n B. The Director Misunderstands the True Scope of a Construction that Permits\n Data Being Operated Upon by a Back-Up Application to be Relevant Data. .......... 3\n\t\r \u00a0\n C. Gold Reads a Storage Object Before Determining Relevancy.............................. 5\n\t\r \u00a0\n D. By Hypothesizing Two Reads, the Director Stretches the Claims Too Far. ........ 8\n\t\r \u00a0\n E. The Board\u2019s Conclusions of Anticipation by Pruett Rest on Faulty Claim\n Constructions. ...................................................................................................... 10\n\t\r \u00a0\nIII. CONCLUSION............................................................................................ 11\n\t\r \u00a0\n\t\r \u00a0\nPROOF OF SERVICE .......................................................................................... A-1\n\t\r \u00a0\nCERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.................................................................... A-2\n\n\n\n\n\t\r \u00a0 ii\t\r \u00a0\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 09/21/2015\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\t\r \u00a0\n\nCASES\t\r \u00a0\nIn re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,\n 367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................... 10\n\nIn re Skvorecz,\n 580 F. 3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 2, 10\n\nNet MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,\n 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................. 8\n\n\n\n\n\t\r \u00a0 iii\t\r \u00a0\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 27 Page: 4 Filed: 09/21/2015\n\n\n\n\n I. \u00a0 SUMMARY\n\n The Board\u2019s conclusions of anticipation with respect to Gold and Pruett\n\nrest on improper constructions of the claims. Notwithstanding the Director\u2019s\n\ncomments, a construction that is at odds with the claims themselves and the teachings\n\nof the specification cannot stand. The claims of the \u2018089 Patent require determining\n\nwhether a storage object contains relevant data, and, only if that condition is\n\nsatisfied, then reading the storage object and copying the contents of the storage\n\nobject. Under the Board\u2019s construction, however, determining relevancy requires\n\nonly the fact of copying. Because such a construction does not comport with the\n\nclaims themselves or the teachings of the specification, it, along with the Board\u2019s\n\nconclusions of anticipation, should be vacated.\n\n\n\n II. \u00a0 ARGUMENT\n\n A. The Director Mischaracterizes Clouding\u2019s Argument\n Concerning Relevant Data.\n\n In attempting to defend the Board\u2019s construction of the term \u201crelevant\n\ndata,\u201d the Director complains that \u201cClouding creates and knocks down a straw man,\u201d\n\nrather than address the Board\u2019s \u201cactual claim construction.\u201d1 This is not so. The\n\nBoard concluded that relevant data is \u201cdata relevant to the purpose for which\n\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\n1\n Intervenor\u2019s Br. at 14-15.\n\n\n\t\r \u00a0 1\t\r \u00a0\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 27 Page: 5 Filed: 09/21/2015\n\n\n\n\nstorage objects are being copied.\u201d2 This construction makes the determination of\n\nrelevancy turn on the fact of copying, instead of the other way around, as\n\nrequired by the claims.\n\n Under the Board\u2019s construction, it is \u201cthe purpose for which storage objects\n\nare being copied\u201d that is determinative of whether or not the data is relevant. In other\n\nwords, the act of copying of the data ipso facto makes the data relevant. Such a\n\nconstruction cannot be correct where the claims demand that relevancy determine\n\ncopying or not, not vice-versa.\n\n The broadest reasonable construction does not embrace claim constructions\n\nthat are at odds with the claims themselves.3 Claim 1, representative of the\n\nindependent claims under review, requires determining whether the first storage\n\nobject contains relevant data, and, only if that condition is satisfied, then reading\n\nthe first storage object, and when the reading is completed, copying contents of\n\nthe first storage object to a second storage object of a second storage area.4 Under\n\nthe Board\u2019s construction, however, determining whether the first storage object\n\n\n\n\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\n2\n Final Written Decision at 7-10 (A7 \u2013 A-10).\n\n3\n See, e.g., In re Skvorecz, 580 F. 3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2009).\n\n4\n \u2018089 Patent at 13:24-38 (A-53).\n\n\n\t\r \u00a0 2\t\r \u00a0\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 27 Page: 6 Filed: 09/21/2015\n\n\n\n\ncontains relevant data would be satisfied if the first storage object is read and\n\ncopied for any purpose.\n\n Relevance, as used in the phrase \u201crelevant data,\u201d is not measured in such\n\nterms. Instead, as explained in the \u2018089 Patent, relevance is measured with respect\n\nto the application that will make use of the data.5 Insofar as the Board\u2019s\n\nconstruction permits exactly the opposite, that construction should be vacated.\n\n\n\n B. The Director Misunderstands the True Scope of a\n Construction that Permits Data Being Operated Upon by a\n Back-Up Application to be Relevant Data.\n\n In criticizing Clouding\u2019s proposed construction of \u201crelevant data,\u201d the\n\nDirector, like the Board, contends that it reads out data operated on by an\n\napplication and, therefore, cannot be the broadest reasonable construction of the\n\nterm.6 This is not true. In the proceeding below, Clouding explained that\n\n\u201crelevant data\u201d should be understood as \u201cdata relevant with respect to or in the\n\ncontext of an application that will make use of the data.\u201d7 In the context of a back-up\n\napplication (the example in which this consideration of \u201crelevant data\u201d being the data\n\n\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\n5\n Id. at 9:4-23 (A-51); Decl. of Prasant Mohapatra at \u00b6\u00b6 15, 16 (A-806 \u2013 A-808).\n\n6\n Intervenor\u2019s Br. at 19.\n\n7\n A-229 \u2013 A231; Tr. at 32 (A-339).\n\n\n\t\r \u00a0 3\t\r \u00a0\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 27 Page: 7 Filed: 09/21/2015\n\n\n\n\noperated upon arises), the data being operated upon (i.e., the data being backed up)\n\ncannot be considered \u201crelevant data\u201d for purposes of the claim. If it were, it would\n\nagain be the situation that the fact of copying is determining relevance, instead of\n\nrelevance determining copying.\n\n As explained by Clouding, \u201cwhat is relevant to the backup application is the\n\ndata that it relies upon for its operation rather than the data it operates upon.\u201d8 What\n\nthe claims of the \u2018089 Patent require is that the data have relevancy separate and apart\n\nfrom the fact of copying; that is \u201crelevance is assessed in the context of the application\n\nthat will make use of the data, as opposed to just the data that is operated upon.\u201d9 The\n\nspecification of the \u2019089 Patent directs that, \u201cStorage objects containing data and\n\ninformation relevant to managing the data by a particular application are\n\nidentified, read, and copied to a secondary storage area.\u201d 10 To this end, \u201cBlock\n\nidentifier utility 316A on primary node 110A ensures that only data containing\n\nuseful, relevant data are read to ensure efficiency of the copy-on-read\n\n\n\n\n\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\n8\n Tr. at 33-34 (A-340 \u2013 A-341).\n\n9\n Id. at 34 (A-341).\n\n10\n \u2018089 Patent at 4:64-67 (A-48).\n\n\n\t\r \u00a0 4\t\r \u00a0\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 27 Page: 8 Filed: 09/21/2015\n\n\n\n\noperation.\u201d 11 This solution \u201cavoid[s] replicating unnecessary information and\n\nenable data to be quickly synchronized across a network or locally.\u201d 12\n\n In furtherance of these goals, the claims insist that only relevant data be\n\nread and copied. If instead one reads the claims to cover the act of copying the\n\ndata to be determinative of relevancy, then the purpose of the invention is lost,\n\nand no filters to prevent copying of unnecessary information exist. Inasmuch as\n\nsuch a construction would be contrary to the teachings of the specification it\n\ncannot be reasonable and, hence, the Board\u2019s construction should be vacated.\n\n\t\r \u00a0\n\n C. Gold Reads a Storage Object Before Determining Relevancy.\n\n Whether or not claim 1 permits additional steps, as argued by the\n\nDirector,13 it remains the case that the claims of the \u2018089 Patent require that only\n\n\u201crelevant data\u201d be copied from one storage object to another. Further, unless a\n\nstorage object is determined to contain relevant data, that storage object is not\n\nread. Inasmuch as Gold reads storage objects before determining relevancy, Gold\n\ncannot anticipate the challenged claims.\n\n\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\n11\n Id. at 9:1-3 (A-51).\n\n12\n Id. at 3:56-59 (A-48).\n\n13\n Intervenor\u2019s Br. at 24.\n\n\n\t\r \u00a0 5\t\r \u00a0\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 27 Page: 9 Filed: 09/21/2015\n\n\n\n\n The Director contends that Gold\u2019s \u201creading\u201d of a directory tree is not\n\nreading a file.14 This directly contradicts the testimony of Petitioner\u2019s own expert\n\non the subject. Contrary to the Director\u2019s, and the Board\u2019s, understanding, Dr.\n\nWeissman, indicated, unequivocally, that reading a directory tree involved\n\nreading a storage object:15\n\n\n\n\n The Director also misinterprets the teachings of the \u2018089 Patent. Citing col. 9,\n\nll. 25-27, the Director argues that, the \u2018089 Patent teaches determines relevancy in a\n\nmanner similar to Gold.16 However, the passage cited by the Director actually states,\n\n In action 3.1, block identifier utility 316A identifies useful blocks\n stored in storage area 140A. While block identifier utility 316A is\n shown as directly accessing storage area 140A to perform this\n identification, one of skill in the art will understand that several\n intermediate steps may be performed to provide this functionality.\n\n\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\n14\n Id. at 22.\n\n15\n Depo. of Dr. Weissman at 40:17-20 (A-761).\n\n16\n Intervenor\u2019s Br. at 22.\n\n\n\t\r \u00a0 6\t\r \u00a0\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 27 Page: 10 Filed: 09/21/2015\n\n\n\n\n For example, typically a program reading a data block will call an\n interface to a storage area manager, such as storage area manager\n 118A, which deals with directly accessing the physical device.\n Intermediate layers, such as storage area replication facility 320A\n or one of application 112A, database 114A, or file system 115A,\n may also be used to read the particular type of data being stored\n on the physical device.17\n\nAction 3.1, referenced in the above passage, is shown in Fig. 3, reproduced below.18\n\n\n\n\n\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\n17\n \u2018089 Patent at 9:24-36 (A-51).\n\n18\n Id. at Fig. 3 (A-44).\n\n\n\t\r \u00a0 7\t\r \u00a0\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 27 Page: 11 Filed: 09/21/2015\n\n\n\n\nContrary to the Director\u2019s reading of the text, the \u2018089 Patent does not state that\n\nthe block identifier utility 316A \u201creads\u201d storage area 140A to identify relevant data, as\n\nGold reads a file directory tree, instead the patent states that the block identifier utility\n\n316A \u201caccesses\u201d the storage area to perform this identification. The Director conflates\n\naccessing with reading, but cites no evidence from the record in support of such an\n\nunderstanding.\n\n Instead, what the record does establish is that Gold describes a process in\n\nwhich a first storage object of a first storage area is selected and read before any\n\ndetermination as to whether the first storage object contains relevant data.19 The\n\nclaims of the \u2018089 Patent recite the opposite; requiring a determination as to\n\nwhether a storage object contains relevant data before that storage object is read.\n\nBecause these differences exist, Gold cannot anticipate the claims.20\n\n\n\n D. By Hypothesizing Two Reads, the Director Stretches the\n Claims Too Far.\n\n The Director recognizes that, \u201cthe name of the game is the claim,\u201d21 but then\n\nproceeds to postulate an interpretation of the claim in which a storage object is read\n\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\n19\n Decl. of Prasant Mohapatra at \u00b6 31 (A-818 \u2013 A-819).\n\n20\n See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).\n\n21\n Intervenor\u2019s Br. at 25, citing In re Hiniker, 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1988).\n\n\n\t\r \u00a0 8\t\r \u00a0\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 27 Page: 12 Filed: 09/21/2015\n\n\n\n\ntwice before it is determined to be relevant.22 Such an interpretation does not comport\n\nwith the teachings of the specification. Therefore, while certainly broad, the Director\u2019s\n\ninterpretation is not reasonable.\n\n According to the \u2018089 Patent, \u201cStorage objects containing data and\n\ninformation relevant to managing the data by a particular application are\n\nidentified, read, and copied to a secondary storage area.\u201d 23 To accomplish this\n\ntask, \u201cBlock identifier utility 316A on primary node 110A ensures that only data\n\ncontaining useful, relevant data are read to ensure efficiency of the copy-on-read\n\noperation.\u201d 24 In other words, the goal behind the copy-on-read mode is to\n\npromote efficiency by ensuring that only relevant blocks are read.\n\n Under the Director\u2019s theory, however, before determining relevancy, a\n\nsubject storage object would be read, relevancy determined, and then the storage\n\nobject would be read again and copied.25 How or why a scheme that requires\n\nstorage objects to be read twice before they are copied \u201censure[s] efficiency\u201d is not\n\nexplained by the Director. Nor does the Director explain how reading storage\n\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\n22\n Id. at 25-26.\n\n23\n \u2018089 Patent at 4:64-67 (A-48).\n\n24\n Id. at 9:1-3 (A-51).\n\n25\n Intervenor\u2019s Br. at 25-26.\n\n\n\t\r \u00a0 9\t\r \u00a0\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 27 Page: 13 Filed: 09/21/2015\n\n\n\n\nobjects twice \u201censures that only data containing useful, relevant data are read.\u201d\n\nInstead, it would seem that under the Director\u2019s theory, all storage objects have to\n\nbe read (to determine relevancy) so that those determined to be relevant can be\n\nread again. Because such an understanding of the claims would be a significant\n\ndeparture from the teachings of the specification it is not one that would be\n\npermissible, even under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.26\n\n\t\r \u00a0\n\n E. The Board\u2019s Conclusions of Anticipation by Pruett Rest on\n Faulty Claim Constructions.\n\n The Director does not dispute that in order to find the claims of the \u2018089\n\nPatent anticipated by Pruett, the Board had to interpret the copying of the data\n\nitself as being determinative of its relevancy. As explained by Clouding, however,\n\nthis understanding of relevant data is wrong. Accordingly, the Board\u2019s\n\ndeterminations of anticipation with respect to Pruett should be vacated.\n\n\n\n\n\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\t\r \u00a0\n26\n In re Skvorecz, 580 F. 3d at 1267; In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,\n\n1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (claims must be construed \u201cin light of the specification as it\n\nwould be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.\u201d).\n\n\n\t\r \u00a0 10\t\r \u00a0\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 27 Page: 14 Filed: 09/21/2015\n\n\n\n\nIII. \u00a0 CONCLUSION\n\n For at least the forgoing reasons and those set forth in Clouding\u2019s opening\n\nbrief, the Board\u2019s patentability determinations concerning claims 1-24 should be\n\nvacated and the case remanded for further determinations consistent with the\n\ncorrect construction of the claims.\n\n Respectfully submitted,\nDate: September 19, 2015\n /s/Tarek N. Fahmi\n Tarek N. Fahmi\n Attorney for Appellant\nAscenda Law Group, PC\n333 W. San Carlos Street, Suite 200\nSan Jose, CA 95110\nTel: 866-877-4883\nEmail: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com\n\n\n\n\n\t\r \u00a0 11\t\r \u00a0\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 27 Page: 15 Filed: 09/21/2015\n\n\n\n\n PROOF OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the\n\nforegoing paper entitled\n\n REPLY BRIEF\n\nwas filed with the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal\n\nCircuit via the CM/ECF SYSTEM. Counsel registered with the CM/ECF system\n\nhave been served by operation of the Court\u2019s CM/ECF SYSTEM per Fed. R. App.\n\nP. 25 and Fed. Cir. R. 25(c) on the 19th day of September 2015.\n\n\n\n\nDate: September 19, 2015 /s/Tarek N. Fahmi\n Tarek N. Fahmi\n Attorney for Appellant\n\nAscenda Law Group, PC\n333 W. San Carlos Street, Suite 200\nSan Jose, CA 95110\n\nTel: 866-877-4883\nEmail: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com\n\n\n\n\n A\t\r \u00a0-\u00ad\u2010\u2011\t\r \u00a01\t\r \u00a0\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 27 Page: 16 Filed: 09/21/2015\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE\n\n\n This brief complies with the page length limitations of Federal Rule of\n\nAppellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(A) and does not exceed 15 pages (exclusive of the\n\ntable of contents, table of authorities, proof of service, and this certification).\n\n This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Federal Rule of\n\nAppellate Procedure 32(a)(5), and the type-style requirements of Federal Rule of\n\nAppellate Procedure 32(a)(6).\n\n The brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using\n\nMicrosoft\u00ae Word for Mac ver. 15.13.1 in 14-point Adobe Garamond Pro font.\n\n\n\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n\nDate: September 19, 2015 /s/Tarek N. Fahmi\n Tarek N. Fahmi\n Attorney for Appellant\n\nAscenda Law Group, PC\n333 W. San Carlos Street, Suite 200\nSan Jose, CA 95110\n\nTel: 866-877-4883\nEmail: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com\n\n\n\n\n A\t\r \u00a0-\u00ad\u2010\u2011\t\r \u00a02\t\r \u00a0\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-10-20T04:49:13.259736-07:00","document_number":"27","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0130656556","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:30.140637-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.509437-07:00","date_filed":"2015-09-21","time_filed":null,"entry_number":27,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-09-21.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"REPLY BRIEF FILED for Appellant Clouding Corp. [26]. Number of Pages: 11. Service: 09/21/2015 by email. Pursuant to ECF-10, filer is directed to file six copies of the brief in paper format. The paper copies of the brief should be received by the court on or before 09/28/2015. Appendix is due 10/01/2015. [274401] [SJ] [Entered: 09/22/2015 01:52 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/1938024/","id":1938024,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/1439400/","id":1439400,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/26/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:26.269288-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-09T17:35:31.284716-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"26","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0130655175","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:26.263125-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.483110-07:00","date_filed":"2015-09-21","time_filed":null,"entry_number":26,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-09-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"TENDERED from Appellant Clouding Corp.. Title: REPLY BRIEF. Service: 09/19/2015 by email. [273705] [Tarek Fahmi] [Entered: 09/19/2015 06:54 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/1938023/","id":1938023,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/1439399/","id":1439399,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/24/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:26.255851-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-26T02:23:51.467443-07:00","sha1":"3500b2af2431aaa5cbb2f1b3cbc630b38ab567e6","page_count":38,"file_size":424081,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cafc./gov.uscourts.cafc..24.0_29.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cafc./gov.uscourts.cafc..24.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n 2015-1615\n__________________________________________________________________\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT\n __________________________________\n\n\n In re: CLOUDING CORP.,\n Appellant\n\n __________________________________________________\n Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office,\n Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2013-00519.\n __________________________________________________________\n\n\n\n BRIEF FOR INTERVENOR \u2012 DIRECTOR OF THE\n UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\n\n\n\n THOMAS W. KRAUSE\n Acting Solicitor\n FRANCES M. LYNCH\n MICHAEL S. FORMAN\n Associate Solicitors\n U.S. Patent and Trademark Office\n Mail Stop 8, P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, Virginia 22313\n (571) 272-9035\nSeptember 2, 2015 Attorneys for the Director of the\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n Claim 1\n\n\n 1. A method comprising:\n\n selecting a first storage object of a first storage area;\n\n determining whether the first storage object contains relevant\n data;\n\n if the first storage object contains relevant data, performing the\n following:\n\n reading the first storage object; and\n\n when the reading is completed, copying contents of the\n first storage object to a second storage object of a second storage area;\n and\n\n if the first storage object does not contain relevant data,\n\n selecting a second storage object of the first storage area\n without reading the first storage object and without copying the\n contents of the first storage object to the second storage object.\n\nA5-6.\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\nI. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ......................................................................1\n\nII. STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................................................................2\n\n A. The \u02bc089 Patent .....................................................................................2\n\n B. Gold .......................................................................................................5\n\n C. Pruett......................................................................................................8\n\n D. The Board\u2019s Decision ..........................................................................10\n\nIII. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................................................14\n\nIV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................15\n\n A. Standard Of Review ............................................................................15\n\n B. The Board\u2019s Claim Construction Was Reasonable .............................17\n\n 1. Clouding\u2019s Claim Construction Arguments Are Unavailing ...19\n\n C. The Board Correctly Found That Gold Anticipates Claims 1-24 .......20\n\n 1. Clouding\u2019s Argument That Gold \u201cReads\u201d The Data\n Before It Determines Relevancy Fails ......................................22\n\n D. The Board Correctly Found That Pruett Anticipates\n Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 13, 15, and 16 ..........................................................26\n\n 1. Clouding\u2019s Arguments Regarding Pruett Are Unavailing ........27\n\nV. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................30\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n\nCases Page(s)\nBigio, In re,\n 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004)............................................................................18\n\nConsol. Edison Co. v. NLRB,\n 305 U.S. 197 (1938) .............................................................................................16\n\nCrystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int\u2019l, Inc.,\n 246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................................24\n\nCuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, In re,\n 793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015)............................................................................16\n\nGartside, In re,\n 203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000)............................................................................16\n\nHiniker, In re,\n 150 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1988)............................................................................25\n\nJolley, In re,\n 308 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..................................................................... 16, 17\n\nKaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Group Co.,\n 790 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)............................................................................24\n\nKotzab, In re,\n 217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000)............................................................................16\n\nMorris, In re,\n 127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997)............................................................................16\n\nPara-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int\u2019l, Inc.,\n 73 F.3d 1085 (Fed. Cir. 1995)..............................................................................16\n\nSchreiber, In re,\n 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)............................................................................16\n\nVitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc.,\n 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..............................................................................19\n\n ii\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 5 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\nWatts, In re,\n 354 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2004)............................................................... 15, 24, 28\n\nStatutes\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 143 ..........................................................................................................1\n\nRegulations\n37 C.F.R. \u00a7 42.100 ...................................................................................................16\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 6 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES\n\n The Director is unaware of any other appeal in this proceeding from the\n\nPatent Trial and Appeal Board (\u201cthe Board\u201d) for the United States Patent and\n\nTrademark Office (\u201cUSPTO\u201d) that has previously been before this Court.\n\nHowever, U.S. Patent No. 7,032,089 is currently at issue in Clouding Corp. v.\n\nEMC Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-01178 (D. Del.), and VMWare, Inc. v. Clouding\n\nCorp., Case No. IPR2014-01292 (PTAB).\n\n\n\n\n iv\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 7 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\nI. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE\n\n Clouding Corp. (\u201cClouding\u201d) owns U.S. Patent No. 7,032,089 (\u201cthe \u2019089\n\npatent\u201d). Rackspace Hosting, Inc. (\u201cRackspace\u201d) filed a petition with the U.S.\n\nPatent and Trademark Office (\u201cUSPTO\u201d) to institute an inter partes review of\n\nclaims 1-24 of the \u2019089 patent. The USPTO granted Rackspace\u2019s petition,\n\ninstituting the inter partes review for all of the challenged claims. The Board\n\nultimately issued a final written decision concluding that claims 1-24 were\n\nunpatentable under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 102.\n\n Clouding challenges the Board\u2019s final written decision. Rackspace is not\n\nparticipating in this appeal. In re Clouding Corp., Appeal No. 2015-1615, Order,\n\nECF No. 8 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2015). The Director of the USPTO intervened to\n\ndefend the Board\u2019s final written decision. See 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 143.\n\n Claim 1 of the \u2019089 patent recites a method for backing up data to a separate\n\nstorage area. If data is determined to be \u201crelevant,\u201d it is read and copied to a\n\nseparate storage area; if it is determined not to be relevant, it is not then read or\n\ncopied.\n\n The Board determined that the broadest reasonable construction of \u201crelevant\n\ndata\u201d is \u201cdata relevant to the purpose for which storage objects are being copied.\u201d\n\nThe first question on appeal is whether the Board correctly construed the term\n\n\u201crelevant data.\u201d\n\n 1\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 8 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n Prior art Gold discloses a method for backing up data on a tape backup\n\nsystem. Gold describes reading the current directory tree of the local file system\n\nand checking each file\u2019s modified time/date against the cached directory tree file.\n\nIt then filters the list for excluded files, such as temporary files, Internet cache\n\nfiles and swap files. Files that do not need to be backed up are not read or copied.\n\nFiles that need to be backed up are read and copied to a tape backup system.\n\n Prior art Pruett discloses a method for backing up data on a separate\n\ncomputer. If a user specifies that particular data should not be backed up, that\n\ndata is not read or copied. Files that need to be backed up are read and copied to\n\na separate computer.\n\n The Board found that each of Gold and Pruett anticipates claim 1 of the \u2019089\n\npatent. The second issue on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the\n\nBoard\u2019s fact findings made as part of its anticipation analysis.\n\nII. STATEMENT OF THE CASE\n\n A. The \u02bc089 Patent\n The \u02bc089 patent1 generally relates to synchronizing data maintained in\n\nseparate storage areas for backup and/or disaster recovery purposes. A41,\n\nabstract.\n\n1\n Replica Synchronization Using Copy-On-Read Technique, U.S. Patent No.\n7,032,089 (issued April 18, 2006) (\u201cthe \u02bc089 patent\u201d). A41-54.\n\n 2\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 9 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n The Background of the Invention describes prior art replication processes\n\nwhere data is copied from its original (\u201cprimary\u201d) storage area to the duplicate\n\n(\u201creplica\u201d) storage area. A47, col.1, lns. 58-64. Fig. 1 is captioned as a \u201ccopy-\n\non-write\u201d process. A49, col. 6, ln. 27 - A50, col. 7, ln. 25. According to the\n\nspecification, \u201ccopy-on-write\u201d methods have the disadvantage of copying\n\nirrelevant data. See A50, col. 8, lns. 14-16. To avoid the copying of irrelevant\n\ndata, the specification describes a \u201ccopy-on-read\u201d process where relevancy is\n\ndetermined before reading and copying, thereby conserving network bandwidth.\n\nA50, col. 8, ln. 17 - A51, col. 10, ln. 14; A52, col. 11, lns. 56-63.\n\n Figure 3 of the \u2018089 patent is reproduced below:\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 10 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\nA44.\n\n Primary node 110A includes a block identifier utility 316A that identifies\n\nuseful blocks (storage objects) of storage area 140A for copying to the secondary\n\nnode. A50, col. 8, lns. 18-28. This identification of useful blocks is typically\n\nperformed in response to a user command. A51, col. 9, lns. 37-38. \u201c[B]lock\n\nidentifier utility 316A notifies file system 115A of the useful blocks\u201d and \u201cfile\n\nsystem 115A initiates a read operation on the relevant blocks.\u201d A51, col. 9, lns.\n\n45-47. However, storage area replication facility 320A traps the read operation.\n\nA51, col. 9, lns. 48-51. It \u201callows the read operation to pass through to storage\n\narea manager 118A.\u201d A51, col. 9, lns. 48-53. Storage area manager 118A \u201creads\n\nthe data from the identified relevant blocks from storage area 140A.\u201d A51, col. 9,\n\nlns. 53-55. The data read are \u201cintercepted by storage area replication facility\n\n320A\u201d and sent to storage area replication facility 320B on secondary node 110B.\n\nA51, col. 9, lns. 56-59.\n\n The block to be copied to the secondary node can be compared to a\n\ncorresponding block already stored on the secondary node\u2019s storage area by\n\ncomparing their checksums. A51, col. 10, lns. 53-56. If the checksums match,\n\nthere is no need to copy the data because it is already replicated. A51, col. 10,\n\nlns. 60-63.\n\n Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:\n\n 4\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 11 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n 1. A method comprising:\n selecting a first storage object of a first storage area;\n determining whether the first storage object contains relevant\n data;\n if the first storage object contains relevant data, performing\n the following:\n reading the first storage object; and\n when the reading is completed, copying contents of the\n first storage object to a second storage object of a\n second storage area; and\n if the first storage object does not contain relevant data,\n selecting a second storage object of the first storage area\n without reading the first storage object and without\n copying the contents of the first storage object to the\n second storage object.\nA5-6.\n\n B. Gold\n Gold2 describes a technique for backing up computer files stored on a client\n\ncomputer to tape media connected via a network. A402, abstract. Figure 6 of\n\nGold is reproduced below:\n\n\n\n\n2\n Data Backup and Recovery Systems, WO 99/12098 (publ. March 11, 1999)\n(\u201cGold\u201d). A402-38.\n\n 5\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 12 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\nA433.\n\n The client has a dynamic scheduler module that assesses the client\u2019s\n\nresources to determine if a client backup can run without interfering with system\n 6\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 13 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\nperformance. A408, lns. 16-37. If it can, a file differencing module (FDM)\n\n\u201cselects the files to be backed up by determining which files have changed or\n\nbeen added since the last backup.\u201d A410, lns. 9-10. It does so by \u201creading the\n\ncurrent directory tree\u201d of the client\u2019s file system and comparing each file\u2019s\n\nmodified time and date against the entries in a cached directory tree file generated\n\nfrom the last backup. Id., lns. 11-13.\n\n Before any further processing, the FDM filters the list for files that do not\n\nneed to be backed up (such as temporary files, Internet cache files, swap files,\n\netc.). Id., lns. 16-17. It next determines which of the new files are already held\n\non the tape backup system. Id., lns. 20-21. The FDM first sends a list of\n\nproposed files to the tape backup apparatus. Id., lns. 23-24. The list contains \u201cfor\n\neach file a 32-bit CRC code (calculated for the respective name, date/time stamp\n\nand file size information).\u201d Id., lns. 24-25. The tape backup apparatus \u201creturns a\n\nlist of the files that match its existing backup file contents, and for each file it also\n\nreturns a signature\u201d (a 32-bit CRC checksum calculated over the actual file data)\n\nand \u201can indication of the location of the file on the backup server.\u201d Id., lns. 25-\n\n28.\n\n \u201cFor each of the potentially redundant files in the list, the FDM 330\n\ngenerates a respective signature value and compares it with the value returned by\n\nthe tape backup apparatus 240.\u201d Id., lns. 28-30. \u201cWhen the signatures match, the\n\n 7\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 14 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\nfile marking is changed from \u2018New\u2019 to \u2018Redundant.\u2019\u201d Id., ln. 30. A block\n\ndifferencing module determines which blocks in each file have changed since the\n\nlast backup. A411, lns. 7-8. A data transfer module then performs the actual\n\ntransfer of the backup data from the backup agent to the tape backup apparatus.\n\nA412, lns. 12-14.\n\n C. Pruett\n Pruett3 describes a technique for synchronizing computer file directories.\n\nA486, col. 1, lns. 6-8.\n\n Figure 2B of Pruett is reproduced below:\n\n\n\n\n3\n Method and System for Synchronizing Computer File Directories, U.S.\nPatent No. 5,778,389 (issued July 7, 1998) (\u201cPruett\u201d). A481-91.\n\n 8\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 15 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\nA484.\n\n A user initiates synchronization by invoking a program and identifying\n\nsource and target directories along with any optional qualifiers that affect the\n\nsynchronization. A487, col. 3, lns. 1-8. An \u201c/H:\u201d qualifier specifies that hidden\n\nfiles in the source directory are not to be synchronized with the target directory.\n\n 9\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 16 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\nA489, col. 8, lns. 38-40. An \u201cI/:\u201d qualifier specifies that an \u201caction\u201d file will be\n\nconsulted to determine what action should be taken with respect to that directory\n\neach time a source or target directory is encountered. A487, col. 3, lns. 55-59.\n\nOne such action can be to ignore a source directory, in which case the\n\nsynchronizing program skips that directory. See, e.g., A488, col. 5, lns. 40-56.\n\n The synchronizing program first identifies whether a candidate file is a\n\nsubdirectory of the source directory and, if not, determines whether a file with\n\nthat same name exists in the target directory. Id., col. 6, lns. 18-30. If the file\n\ndoes not exist in the target directory, it is copied from the source directory to the\n\ntarget directory. Id., col. 6, lns. 30-33. If the file does exist in the target\n\ndirectory, the synchronizing program determines whether the files in the source\n\nand target directories have identical contents (by comparing date-time stamps of\n\nthe files). Id., col. 6, lns. 42-53. If they do, the synchronizing program does not\n\ncopy the contents of the source file into the target file. Id., col. 6, lns. 47-48. The\n\nsynchronizing program continues this process sequentially through the files in the\n\nsource directory until there are no more files to synchronize. A490, col. 10, lns.\n\n26-35.\n\n D. The Board\u2019s Decision\n In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that claims 1-24 of the \u02bc089\n\npatent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 102(b) as anticipated by Gold; and\n\n 10\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 17 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\nclaims 1-3, 6, 7, 13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 102(b) as\n\nanticipated by Pruett. A1-38.\n\n The Board first construed the term \u201crelevant data.\u201d A7-10. The Board\n\nnoted that the \u2019089 specification described \u201cdifferent examples of relevant data,\n\nincluding data relevant to an application\u2019s operation, data relevant to an\n\napplication\u2019s management of data, and the data operated on by an application\n\n(traversed by a file dump utility).\u201d A9.\n\n In light of these different examples and claim 1\u2019s general recitation of\n\n\u201crelevant data,\u201d the Board determined that the broadest reasonable construction of\n\n\u201crelevant data\u201d is \u201cdata relevant to the purpose for which storage objects are\n\nbeing copied.\u201d A10. The Board clarified that this construction included both\n\n\u201cdata relevant to the operation of an application\u201d and \u201cthe data operated on by the\n\napplication.\u201d A8.\n\n Clouding had proposed that \u201crelevant data\u201d be construed as \u201cdata relevant\n\nwith respect to or in the context of an application that will make use of the data.\u201d\n\nA7. Clouding argued that its construction included the data that an application\n\nrelies upon for its operation, but excluded the data operated on by an application.\n\nA8. The Board stated that this distinction was not captured in Clouding\u2019s\n\nproposed construction because, by its terms, Clouding\u2019s construction covers \u201cboth\n\n[the] data used by an application to function and the data on which the application\n\n 11\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 18 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\nfunctions.\u201d Id. But assuming that Clouding\u2019s proposal did exclude the data\n\noperated on by an application, the Board found that it was too narrow in light of\n\nthe specification\u2019s examples. A9; A10, citing A52, col. 11, lns. 27-35.\n\n The Board then found that Gold discloses every limitation of claim 1. In\n\nparticular, the Board found that Gold meets the \u201cdetermining whether the first\n\nstorage object contains relevant data\u201d limitation. A24-27. Gold reads file\n\nattributes in a directory and checks each file\u2019s modified date/time entries against\n\nentries in a cached directory tree file. It then filters a list of files for excluded\n\nfiles (e.g., temporary files and Internet cache files). Id.\n\n Clouding asserted that Gold did not anticipate claim 1 because Gold reads\n\nthe storage object before it determines relevancy, and claim 1 requires that\n\nrelevancy be determined before reading. The Board disagreed, finding that\n\nGold\u2019s filtering process only reads file attributes (the time/date) in a directory.\n\nA26 (stating that Gold discloses \u201creading the current directory tree of the local\n\nfile system 322 and checking each file\u2019s modified time/date against the entries in\n\na cached Directory Tree File (DTF) 332 generated from the last backup.\u201d) The\n\nBoard further found that the \u2019089 patent determines relevancy of a file in a similar\n\nmanner when it discloses that \u201cblock identifier utility 316A is shown as directly\n\naccessing storage area 140A to perform this identification.\u201d Id., citing A51, col.\n\n9, lns. 25-27.\n\n 12\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 19 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n Moreover, the Board found that even if Gold did read the file before\n\ndetermining relevancy, Gold still anticipates claim 1 because its \u201ccomprising\u201d\n\nlanguage allows for an additional reading step before the relevancy step. A26-28.\n\nClouding disputed this, arguing that a reading step before the relevancy step\n\nwould \u201crun afoul\u201d of the claim limitation that \u201cif the first storage object does not\n\ncontain relevant data, selecting a second storage object of the first storage area\n\nwithout reading the first storage object and without copying the contents of the\n\nfirst storage object to the second storage object.\u201d A26 (emphasis omitted). In\n\nresponse, the Board pointed out that this limitation only pertains to the behavior\n\nof the claimed method after a relevancy determination has been made; there is no\n\nprohibition in the claim on reading before or during a relevancy determination.\n\nA27.\n\n The Board then found that Pruett anticipated claims 1-3, 6, 7, 13, 15, and\n\n16. A30-37. The Board found that Pruett\u2019s description of skipping hidden files\n\nand only analyzing and copying non-hidden files discloses \u201cdetermining whether\n\nthe first storage object contains relevant data.\u201d A33-34. The Board was not\n\npersuaded by Clouding\u2019s argument that \u201c[s]imply because a user does not wish to\n\nback up a particular file or directory (hidden or otherwise) does not mean that the\n\napplication that will make use of that file does not consider the file to be\n\nrelevant.\u201d A33. As the Board recognized, nothing in claim 1 precludes a\n\n 13\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 20 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n relevancy determination made pursuant to a user configuration. A33-34. And the\n\n Board explained that \u201c[i]f a user, through configuration flags, indicates to a\n\n backup application that certain files are not to be backed up, the user is indicating\n\n that data not flagged for exclusion are relevant to the purpose for which the data\n\n are being copied.\u201d A34.\n\n Finally, because Pruett determines whether a file is hidden (and thus not\n\n subject to backup) before copying the file, the Board rejected Clouding\u2019s\n\n contention that Pruett does not determine relevancy before copying. A34-35.\n\nIII. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT\n\n Claim 1 of the \u2019089 patent discloses a method for backing up computer\n\n data. Once data is determined to be relevant, it is read and copied to a separate\n\n storage area. If data is determined not to be relevant, it is not then read or copied.\n\n In its opening brief, Clouding creates and knocks down a straw man.\n\n Specifically, rather than contest the Board\u2019s actual construction of \u201crelevant data\u201d\n\n (\u201cdata relevant to the purpose for which storage objects are being copied\u201d),\n\n Clouding contests a construction that the Board never made (copying determines\n\n the data\u2019s relevancy). Only by making that change can Clouding declare that the\n\n Board\u2019s claim construction is \u201cfaulty,\u201d \u201cnonsensical,\u201d and \u201ccontrary to the\n\n teachings of the specification and dismissive of the very invention recited in the\n\n claims.\u201d\n\n 14\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 21 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n But all of Clouding\u2019s arguments evaporate when one considers the Board\u2019s\n\nactual claim construction. Contrary to Clouding\u2019s objections, the Board did not\n\nread relevancy out of the claim or make relevancy turn on the fact of copying.\n\nRather, the Board simply applied the broadest reasonable construction to the term\n\n\u201crelevant data\u201d and declined to read limitations from the specification into the\n\nclaims. As a result, the Board\u2019s claim construction properly includes both the\n\ndata relevant to the operation of an application and the data operated on by the\n\napplication.\n\n The Board correctly found that each of Gold and Pruett disclose every\n\nlimitation of claim 1, arranged as in the claim. Namely, both Gold and Pruett\n\ndisclose methods that (i) determine whether data is relevant and if so (ii) read and\n\ncopy it to a separate storage area.\n\n Because substantial evidence supports all of the Board\u2019s fact findings, and\n\nbecause the Board\u2019s claim construction is correct as a matter of law, this Court\n\nshould affirm the anticipation of claims 1-24 of the \u2019089 patent.\n\nIV. ARGUMENT\n\n A. Standard Of Review\n Clouding bears the burden to \u201cnot only show the existence of error, but also\n\nshow that the error was in fact harmful because it affected the decision below.\u201d\n\nIn re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).\n\n 15\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 22 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n In an inter partes review, a \u201cclaim in an unexpired patent shall be given its\n\nbroadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in\n\nwhich it appears.\u201d 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793\n\nF.3d 1268, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This Court reviews the Board\u2019s interpretation\n\nof disputed claim language to determine whether it is \u201creasonable.\u201d In re Morris,\n\n127 F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 1997).\n\n Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 102 is a question of fact. In re Schreiber,\n\n128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). What a reference teaches is also a question\n\nof fact. Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int\u2019l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085,\n\n1088 (Fed. Cir. 1995).\n\n This Court upholds the Board\u2019s factual determinations unless they are not\n\nsupported by substantial evidence. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed.\n\nCir. 2000). Substantial evidence is \u201csuch relevant evidence as a reasonable mind\n\nmight accept as adequate to support\u201d the conclusion reached. Consol. Edison Co.\n\nv. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). It is \u201csomething less than the weight of the\n\nevidence but more than a mere scintilla of evidence.\u201d In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d\n\n1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2000). For example, \u201cwhere two different, inconsistent\n\nconclusions may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in record, an agency\u2019s\n\ndecision to favor one conclusion over the other is the epitome of a decision that\n\n\n\n 16\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 23 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\nmust be sustained upon review for substantial evidence.\u201d In re Jolley, 308 F.3d\n\n1317, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2002).\n\n B. The Board\u2019s Claim Construction Was Reasonable\n Consistent with this Court\u2019s case law, the Board performed a careful claim\n\nconstruction analysis and determined that the broadest reasonable construction of\n\nthe term \u201crelevant data\u201d is \u201cdata relevant to the purpose for which storage objects\n\nare being copied.\u201d A10.\n\n Here, the patentee chose to claim a broad term, \u201crelevant data,\u201d without\n\ndefining it in the specification. Thus, the Board properly looked to how the\n\nspecification used the term. A7-10. When it did, the Board found different\n\nexamples of relevant data including data relevant to an application\u2019s operation,\n\ndata relevant to an application\u2019s management of data, and the data operated on by\n\nan application (traversed by a file dump utility). A9. In particular, the Board\n\nrelied on the following passages from the specification:\n\n Storage objects containing data and information relevant to\n managing the data by a particular application . . . . A48, col. 4, lns.\n 65-66 (emphasis added)\n\n Not all of the data in each block is necessarily relevant for operation\n of the application managing the data on a remote node. A50, col. 8,\n lns. 13-15 (emphasis added)\n\n In \u201cIdentify Primary Storage Object with Useful Contents\u201d step 510,\n an application or utility capable of identifying storage objects with\n data or information used for managing the data identifies a storage\n\n 17\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 24 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n object with useful contents. A51, col. 10, lns. 42-46 (emphasis\n added)\n\n Establishing a \u201ccopy-on-read\u201d mode in the storage area replication\n facility is the first step; however a utility must be used that will\n identify relevant data blocks. For example, some file systems\n include utilities that walk through all the on-disk data structures, but\n most of them will not necessarily read every useful data block of a\n file. Some file systems include a \u201cdump\u201d utility that traverses all the\n data structures as well as the data blocks, so such utilities can be\n good candidates for identifying relevant blocks. A52, col. 11, lns.\n 27-35 (emphasis added)\n\n In light of these examples and in recognition that claim 1 does not specify\n\nwhat the data of the first storage object are determined to be relevant to, the\n\nBoard correctly declined to read any specific limitation into claim 1. A9-10; In re\n\nBigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (\u201c[T]his court counsels the PTO to\n\navoid the temptation to limit broad claim terms solely on the basis of specification\n\npassages.\u201d)\n\n The Board thus properly concluded that \u201crelevant data\u201d is \u201cdata relevant to\n\nthe purpose for which storage objects are being copied.\u201d A10. And to correct\n\nClouding\u2019s misimpression that the Board\u2019s construction was restricted to only\n\ndata operated on by the application, the Board spelled out that it included both\n\ndata relevant to the operation of an application and the data operated on by the\n\napplication. A8.\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 25 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n 1. Clouding\u2019s Claim Construction Arguments Are Unavailing\n Clouding contends that \u201crelevant data\u201d is \u201cdata relevant with respect to or\n\nin the context of an application that will make use of the data.\u201d Br. 15. Clouding\n\nalso argues that this construction excludes the data on which the application\n\nfunctions. A8-10.\n\n The Board disagreed, noting that the plain language of Clouding\u2019s\n\nproposed construction encompasses data relevant to the operation of an\n\napplication and the data operated on by the application. A8. For that reason, the\n\nBoard did not see a meaningful difference between Clouding\u2019s construction and\n\nthe Board\u2019s construction. Id. Thus, there is no real claim construction dispute\n\nhere.\n\n But assuming that Clouding\u2019s proposed construction does exclude data on\n\nwhich the application functions, it is too narrowly drawn. As the Board pointed\n\nout, the \u2019089 specification contains numerous examples of relevant data,\n\nincluding data on which the application functions. A9-10, citing A52, col. 11,\n\nlns. 27-35. Because Clouding argues that its claim construction would exclude\n\nthis embodiment, the Board properly declined to adopt it. A10; A6, n.2, citing\n\nVitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (a\n\nclaim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment \u201cis rarely, if ever,\n\ncorrect and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.\u201d).\n\n 19\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 26 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n Rather than address the Board\u2019s fact findings and reasoning, Clouding\n\nattacks the Board\u2019s claim construction as \u201cfaulty,\u201d \u201cnonsensical,\u201d and \u201ccontrary\n\nto the teachings of the specification and dismissive of the very invention recited\n\nin the claims.\u201d Br. 11, 12, 20. But the claim construction that Clouding is\n\nattacking \u2015 copying determines the data\u2019s relevancy \u2015 is not the claim\n\nconstruction that the Board made. Compare Br. 20 with A10. And there can be\n\nno dispute that the Board\u2019s claim construction properly accounts for all of the\n\nexamples of \u201crelevant data\u201d in the \u2019089 specification when it construes \u201crelevant\n\ndata\u201d to be \u201cdata relevant to the purpose for which storage objects are being\n\ncopied.\u201d A10.\n\n C. The Board Correctly Found That Gold Anticipates Claims 1-24\n In its opening brief, Clouding does not argue any claims separately, and\n\ninstead focuses on claim 1 as representative of the claims and issues on appeal.\n\nSee Br. 15. Accordingly, the Director also focuses on claim 1 and treats it as\n\nrepresentative of the claims on appeal.\n\n Claim 1\u2019s \u201cfirst storage area\u201d is met by Gold\u2019s hard disk drive, on which a\n\nlocal file system (client file system 322) resides. A24; A408, lns. 9-10. Gold\n\ndiscloses \u201cselecting a first storage object of a first storage area\u201d when it teaches\n\nthat its FDM 330 selects files to be backed up by determining which files have\n\nchanged or have been added. A24; A410, lns. 9-11.\n\n 20\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 27 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n Gold then \u201cdetermin[es] whether the first storage object contains relevant\n\ndata.\u201d A24-26; A410, lns. 16-19. Gold determines whether to backup a file by\n\n\u201creading the current directory tree of the local file system 322 and checking each\n\nfile\u2019s modified time/date against the entries in a cached Directory Tree File (DTF)\n\n332 generated from the last backup.\u201d A26; A410, lns. 11-13. And before any\n\nfurther processing, the list is filtered for files that do not need to be backed up\n\n(such as temporary files, Internet cache files, swap files, etc.). A25; A410, lns.\n\n16-17.\n\n Claim 1 additionally recites \u201cif the first storage object contains relevant\n\ndata . . . reading the first storage object.\u201d Gold\u2019s description of transferring a file\n\nto be backed up from the client to the tape backup necessarily requires reading\n\nthat file. A27-28; A583, Weissman Decl. \u00b6 35; A412, lns. 6-10. And Gold\n\n\u201ccop[ies] contents of the first storage object to a second storage object of a second\n\nstorage area\u201d when it describes sending files to be backed up to a data transfer\n\nmodule to be compressed and sent to the tape backup apparatus. A28; A412, lns.\n\n5-16.\n\n Finally, claim 1 requires that \u201cif the first storage object does not contain\n\nrelevant data, selecting a second storage object of the first storage area without\n\nreading the first storage object and without copying the contents of the first\n\nstorage object to the second storage object.\u201d A5-6. Because the files excluded by\n\n 21\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 28 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\nGold\u2019s FDM, which do not contain relevant data, are filtered rather than read and\n\ncopied, the Board found that Gold discloses this limitation as well. A28; A410,\n\nlns. 16-19. Because substantial evidence supports all of the fact findings by the\n\nBoard, this Court should affirm that Gold anticipates claims 1-24.\n\n 1. Clouding\u2019s Argument That Gold \u201cReads\u201d The Data\n Before It Determines Relevancy Fails\n Clouding insists that Gold does not perform claim 1\u2019s steps in the order\n\nthey are recited. Br. 28-35. In particular, Clouding asserts that claim 1 requires\n\ndetermining relevancy before reading the first storage object and that Gold\n\ndetermines relevancy after reading the first storage object. Br. 30.\n\n First, Clouding contends that Gold\u2019s review of the directory tree \u201creads\u201d\n\nthe storage object before it determines relevancy. Id. But as the Board explained,\n\nGold\u2019s review of the directory tree discloses only reading file attributes (the\n\ntime/date) in a directory; there is no disclosure of reading the actual file. A26.\n\nSpecifically, Gold discloses \u201creading the current directory tree of the local file\n\nsystem 322 and checking each file\u2019s modified time/date against the entries in a\n\ncached Directory Tree File (DTF) 332 generated from the last backup.\u201d A26;\n\n410, lns. 11-13. In fact, the \u2019089 patent determines relevancy of a file in a similar\n\nmanner: \u201cblock identifier utility 316A is shown as directly accessing storage area\n\n140A to perform this identification.\u201d A26; A51, col. 9, lns. 25-27.\n\n\n 22\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 29 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n Clouding then proclaims that Dr. Weissman, Rackspace\u2019s expert, admitted\n\nthat Gold reads the files before determining relevancy when he answered \u201cyes\u201d to\n\nthe question \u201cso does reading the current directory tree of a local file system\n\ninvolve reading a storage object?\u201d Br. 30-31, citing A761. But Clouding makes\n\ntoo much of this testimony. A323-34, 365-66 (Rackspace\u2019s counsel discussing\n\nDr. Weissman\u2019s testimony at oral argument). And any testimony by Dr.\n\nWeissman cannot trump Gold\u2019s express disclosure that its FDM \u201cread[s] the\n\ncurrent directory tree\u201d and checks \u201ceach file\u2019s modified time/date.\u201d A26; A410,\n\nlns. 11-13. There is no disclosure that Gold reads the file contents that are later\n\ncopied. Indeed, as the Board found, the \u2019089 patent operates the same way. A26;\n\nA51, col. 9, lns. 25-27.\n\n Second, Clouding now alleges that Gold performs a second \u201cread\u201d of the\n\nstorage object before making a relevancy determination. Br. 31. Specifically,\n\nClouding contends that after the current directory tree of the local file system is\n\nread, Gold determines which files need not be copied by generating a signature of\n\na candidate file, and comparing that signature with a CRC value returned by the\n\ntape backup. Id. Clouding asserts that the file is read in order to generate the\n\nsignature and that the relevancy determination occurs later, after the comparison\n\nis made between the signature and the CRC value. Br. 31-32.\n\n\n\n 23\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 30 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n Because Clouding did not make this argument to the Board, it is waived.\n\nWatts, 354 F.3d at 1367 (\u201c[I]t is important that the applicant challenging a\n\ndecision not be permitted to raise arguments on appeal that were not presented to\n\nthe Board.\u201d). And on the merits, Clouding\u2019s new argument fails. As the Board\n\ncorrectly found, Gold determines relevancy before Gold generates any signatures.\n\nA24-28. Thus, substantial evidence supports the Board\u2019s finding that Gold\n\ndetermines relevancy before reading the data. Id.\n\n But even if this Court were to disagree, Gold still anticipates claim 1\n\nbecause its language and structure allow for an additional reading step before the\n\nrelevancy determining step. A26-30.\n\n First, claim 1\u2019s language \u2015 using the open-ended term \u201ccomprising\u201d \u2015\n\nallows for additional steps not specified in the claim. Crystal Semiconductor\n\nCorp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int\u2019l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir.\n\n2001) (\u201c[T]he word \u2018comprising\u2019 in the transitional phrase of a patent claim\n\ncreates a presumption that the body of the claim is open.\u201d). Thus, a prior art\n\nreference, like Gold, that discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and an\n\nadditional unrecited reading step still falls within its scope. Kaneka Corp. v.\n\nXiamen Kingdomway Group Co., 790 F.3d 1298, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (the\n\n\u201cclaims\u2019 preamble term \u2018comprises\u2019 indicates that additional oxidation steps or\n\nresults are not excluded.\u201d).\n\n 24\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 31 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n Second, the structure of claim 1 confirms that a reading step could occur\n\nboth before and after the relevancy step. Clouding, however, insists that an\n\nadditional reading step before the relevancy step would run afoul of the claim\n\nlimitation that \u201cif the first storage object does not contain relevant data, selecting\n\na second storage object of the first storage area without reading the first storage\n\nobject and without copying the contents of the first storage object to the second\n\nstorage object.\u201d Br. 25-26 (emphasis added). But Clouding misinterprets this\n\nlimitation to mean that \u201cunless a storage object is determined to contain relevant\n\ndata, that storage object is not even read.\u201d Br. 11. The Board corrected that\n\nmisunderstanding, pointing out that this limitation only pertains to the behavior of\n\nthe claimed method after a relevancy determination has been made and that\n\nnothing in claim 1 precludes reading before a relevancy determination is made.\n\nA27.\n\n Clouding, however, challenges the Board\u2019s interpretation because \u201cin the\n\ncopy-on-read mode of the invention, reading the data begets copying the data.\u201d\n\nBr. 25. In other words, Clouding maintains that reading necessarily results in\n\ncopying in the \u201ccopy-on-read\u201d process. A345. But even if true, \u201cthe name of the\n\ngame is the claim.\u201d In re Hiniker, 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1988). And\n\nclaim 1 does not require that once a storage object is read, it must be copied.\n\nA352-53. To the contrary, claim 1 easily encompasses a sequence in which one\n\n 25\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 32 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\nreads the storage object, determines that it is relevant, reads it again and then\n\ncopies it. A27.\n\n Lastly, contrary to Clouding\u2019s insistence, the Board\u2019s interpretation would\n\nnot make relevancy \u201cirrelevant.\u201d Br. 27. Claim 1 would still require that after a\n\ndetermination of relevancy is made, the data is read and copied.\n\n D. The Board Correctly Found That Pruett Anticipates\n Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 13, 15, and 16\n\n The Board correctly found that Pruett anticipated claims 1-3, 6, 7, 13, 15,\n\nand 16. A30-37. The source directory 32 of the server 10\u2019s mass storage device\n\n20 in Pruett is a \u201cfirst storage area,\u201d and a subdirectory or file in that source\n\ndirectory is a \u201cfirst storage object.\u201d A33; A488, col. 5, lns. 21-31. Pruett\u2019s\n\ndescription of determining whether a file in the source directory is a file or\n\nsubdirectory and subsequently selecting the file or subdirectory for processing\n\ndiscloses \u201cselecting a first storage object of a first storage area.\u201d A33; A488,\n\ncol. 6, lns. 18-26; A489, col. 8, lns. 22-28.\n\n Pruett\u2019s description of skipping hidden files and only analyzing and\n\ncopying non-hidden files discloses \u201cdetermining whether the first storage object\n\ncontains relevant data.\u201d A33-34; A489, col. 8, lns. 29-40. As the Board\n\nindicated, \u201c[i]f a user, through configuration flags, indicates to a backup\n\napplication that certain files are not to be backed up, the user is indicating that\n\n\n 26\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 33 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\ndata not flagged for exclusion are relevant to the purpose for which the data are\n\nbeing copied.\u201d A34. Pruett also discloses \u201cif the first storage object contains\n\nrelevant data, . . . reading the first storage object\u201d and copying its contents. A35;\n\nA488, col. 6, lns. 27-33, lns. 64-67.\n\n Lastly, Pruett\u2019s description of \u201csequentially processing files and sub-\n\ndirectories, and skipping those that are hidden, constitutes a disclosure of \u2018if the\n\nfirst storage object does not contain relevant data, selecting a second storage\n\nobject of the first storage area without reading the first storage object and without\n\ncopying the contents of the first storage object to the second storage object.\u2019\u201d\n\nA35; A488, col. 5, lns. 43-44; A489, col. 8, lns. 37-40; A490, col. 9, lns. 31-37.\n\n 1. Clouding\u2019s Arguments Regarding Pruett Are Unavailing\n Clouding asserts that the Board erred when it found that Pruett determines\n\nrelevancy before copying. Br. 35-37. Clouding is incorrect. Pruett determines\n\nwhether a file is hidden (and thus is not subject to backup) before copying the\n\nfile. A33-35; A489, col. 8, lns. 29-40. As illustrated by Figure 2B, copying at\n\nsteps 230 and 242 only takes place if the method proceeds to step 210 rather than\n\n205. A35.\n\n Clouding next argues that \u201c[s]imply because a user does not wish to back\n\nup a particular file or directory (hidden or otherwise) does not mean that the\n\napplication that will make use of that file does not consider the file to be\n\n 27\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 34 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\nrelevant.\u201d Br. 36. To the extent that Clouding is arguing that a user selection is\n\nsomehow precluded by the claims, the Board properly rejected that contention\n\nbecause nothing in claim 1 or the \u2019089 specification precludes relevancy being\n\ndetermined by a user. A34. Indeed, the \u2019089 specification expressly\n\ncontemplates that the \u201cidentification of useful blocks is typically performed in\n\nresponse to a user command.\u201d A51, col. 9, lns. 37-38. And to the extent that\n\nClouding is arguing that the determination whether to copy a file must be made\n\naccording to the \u201crole a file will play in the context of the application that will\n\nmake use of the file\u201d (Br. 36), that simply repeats Clouding\u2019s flawed\n\ninterpretation of its own claim construction.\n\n In a new argument, Clouding maintains that the Board erred because \u201cin\n\nPruett, the determination of relevancy does not end with a determination as to\n\nwhether or not a file is hidden,\u201d but \u201calso includes determining whether a target\n\nfile of the same name exists and, if so, whether that file has the same date time\n\nstamp as the source file.\u201d Br. 38. Because Clouding did not make this argument\n\nto the Board, it is waived. Watts, 354 F.3d at 1367. And on the merits, Clouding\n\nis incorrect. As the Board correctly found, the limitation \u201cdetermining whether\n\nthe first storage object contains relevant data\u201d is met by Pruett\u2019s description of\n\nskipping hidden files and only analyzing and copying non-hidden files. A33-34;\n\nA489, col. 8, lns. 29-40.\n\n 28\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 35 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n Finally, Clouding argues that there is no indication in Pruett that a file\n\ncontaining relevant data is first read and then copied because \u201cPruett is silent as to\n\nthe copying process.\u201d Br. 38. But Pruett is not silent as to copying. See A488,\n\ncol. 6, lns. 27-33, lns. 64-67. And Clouding does not contest the Board\u2019s finding\n\nthat a file must be read before it is copied. A35, citing Weissman Decl. at A590,\n\n\u00b656; A487, col. 3, lns. 16-19 (\u201cTo completely synchronize the target and source\n\ndirectories using program 41, the user should have . . . read permission for the\n\nsource directory . . . . \u201d). Thus, Pruett discloses reading and then copying relevant\n\ndata.\n\n Because substantial evidence supports all of the fact findings made by the\n\nBoard, this Court should affirm the Board\u2019s finding that Pruett anticipates claims\n\n1-3, 6, 7, 13, 15 and 16.\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 36 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\nV. CONCLUSION\n\n The Board correctly found that claims 1-24 are unpatentable under 35\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7 102(b). Accordingly, this Court should affirm the Board\u2019s decision.\n\n\nSeptember 2, 2015 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Frances M. Lynch\n _____________________________\n THOMAS W. KRAUSE\n Acting Solicitor\n\n FRANCES M. LYNCH\n MICHAEL S. FORMAN\n Associate Solicitors\n\n U.S. Patent and Trademark Office\n Mail Stop 8\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, Virginia 22313\n\n Attorneys for the Director of the\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 37 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n RULE 32(a)(7)(C) CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE\n\n I certify pursuant to Fed. R. App. Proc. 32(a)(7) that the foregoing BRIEF\n\nFOR INTERVENOR \u2012 DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND\n\nTRADEMARK OFFICE complies with the type-volume limitation required by the\n\nCourt\u2019s rule. The total number of words in the foregoing brief, excluding the table\n\nof contents and the table of authorities, is 6,038 words as calculated using the\n\nWord\u00ae software program.\n /s/ Frances M. Lynch\n _____________________________\n Frances M. Lynch\n Associate Solicitor\n U.S. Patent and Trademark Office\n\f Case: 15-1615 Document: 24 Page: 38 Filed: 09/02/2015\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on September 2, 2015, the foregoing BRIEF FOR\n\nINTERVENOR \u2012 DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND\n\nTRADEMARK OFFICE was electronically filed using the Court\u2019s CM/ECF filing\n\nsystem. Counsel for appellant was electronically served by and through the\n\nCourt\u2019s CM/ECF filing system per Fed. R. App. P. 25 and Fed. Cir. R. 25(a) and\n\n25(b).\n\n\n\n /s/ Frances M. Lynch\n _____________________________\n Frances M. Lynch\n Associate Solicitor\n U.S. Patent and Trademark Office\n Mail Stop 8\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, Virginia 22313\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-10-20T04:49:16.361908-07:00","document_number":"24","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0130647631","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:26.249331-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.383617-07:00","date_filed":"2015-09-02","time_filed":null,"entry_number":24,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-09-02.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"BRIEF FILED for Intervenor Lee [23]. Number of Pages: 30. Service: 09/02/2015 by email. Pursuant to ECF-10, filer is directed to file six copies of the brief in paper format. The paper copies of the brief should be received by the court on or before 09/14/2015. Appellant Clouding Corp. reply brief is due 09/21/2015. [270225] [LN] [Entered: 09/08/2015 12:59 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/1938022/","id":1938022,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/1439398/","id":1439398,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/23/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:26.240343-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-09T17:35:31.248811-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"23","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0130645352","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:26.232264-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.356502-07:00","date_filed":"2015-09-02","time_filed":null,"entry_number":23,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-09-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"TENDERED from Intervenor Lee. Title: INTERVENOR BRIEF. Service: 09/02/2015 by email. [269127] [Frances Lynch] [Entered: 09/02/2015 04:21 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/1938021/","id":1938021,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/1439397/","id":1439397,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/22/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:26.223845-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-09T17:35:31.227321-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0130627766","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:26.215806-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.325922-07:00","date_filed":"2015-07-31","time_filed":null,"entry_number":22,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-07-31.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER granting motion to extend time to file intervenor's brief [21] filed by Intervenor Lee. Intervenor brief is due 09/02/2015. Service as of this date by Clerk of Court. [261063] [FMS] [Entered: 07/31/2015 10:18 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/1938020/","id":1938020,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/1439396/","id":1439396,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/21/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:26.205043-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-09T17:35:31.206033-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"21","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0130626958","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:26.194114-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.272072-07:00","date_filed":"2015-07-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":21,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-07-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MOTION of Intervenor Lee to extend the time to 09/02/2015 at 11:59 pm to file the intervenor's brief. Response/Opposition is due 08/13/2015 [Consent: unopposed]. Service: 07/30/2015 by email. [260760] [Frances Lynch] [Entered: 07/30/2015 02:44 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/1938019/","id":1938019,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/4162396/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/1439395/","id":1439395,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/4162396/20/in-re-clouding-corp/","date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:26.186677-07:00","date_modified":"2018-12-09T17:35:31.179891-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"20","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"0130624488","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2016-08-19T17:53:26.180179-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:49:03.258228-07:00","date_filed":"2015-07-27","time_filed":null,"entry_number":20,"recap_sequence_number":"2015-07-27.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Docketing Statement for the Intervenor Lee. Service: 07/27/2015 by email. [259658] [Frances Lynch] [Entered: 07/27/2015 02:21 PM]","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=4162396&page_size=40"}