PTAB

IPR2013-00094

Oracle v. Clouding IP LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method System and Apparatus for Providing Pay-Per-Use Distributed Computing Resources
  • Brief Description: The ’784 patent discloses methods and systems for providing on-demand, scalable computational resources to application providers over a distributed network. The technology aims to solve problems related to dynamic resource management and capacity planning by allowing providers to pay for computing resources based on actual usage.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Aziz in view of Reed - Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are obvious over Aziz in view of Reed.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aziz (Patent 6,779,016) and Reed ("Xenoservers: Accountable Execution of Untrusted Programs," a 1999 publication).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Aziz taught the core elements of the challenged claims, including a method for providing distributed, on-demand application processing via a computing grid and "Virtual Server Farms" (VSFs). Aziz disclosed allowing an application provider to deploy applications onto the VSF, dynamically allocating resources from an "Idle Pool" based on load, and billing customers on a "pay-as-you-go" model based on actual resource usage. Petitioner contended that Reed supplemented Aziz by teaching a system of "Xenoservers" where all resources an application consumes are accounted for and charged to the user. Reed’s specific focus on logging work done by each server on behalf of each application was argued to teach the "metering and monitoring" limitation with greater specificity than Aziz.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Aziz's scalable VSF architecture with Reed's granular, per-application accounting to create a more robust and commercially viable multi-tenant system. Implementing Reed’s specific accounting methods would be a predictable way to improve the billing accuracy of the system generally described by Aziz.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that combining a known distributed computing architecture (Aziz) with established resource accounting principles (Reed) was a straightforward application of known techniques that would have yielded predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Aziz in view of Landherr - Claims 19, 20, and 22 are obvious over Aziz in view of Landherr.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aziz (Patent 6,779,016) and Landherr (Patent 6,880,156).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground focused on apparatus claims reciting a "resource manager" and a "metering module." Petitioner asserted that Aziz’s "Control Plane" functioned as the claimed resource manager and metering module, providing the overall apparatus for on-demand computing. Landherr was introduced to explicitly teach a "system allocator" (a resource manager) that activates additional server applications when a measured load exceeds a specific "activation threshold." Petitioner argued this directly corresponded to the claim limitations requiring a resource manager to activate a first set of resources when demand exceeds a first threshold, and a second set when it exceeds a second threshold.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA looking to implement the dynamic scaling taught by Aziz would be motivated to use the explicit threshold-based activation mechanism from Landherr. This would provide a concrete, reliable, and automated method for managing resource allocation, which Petitioner argued was a well-known design choice for improving systems like the one in Aziz.
    • Expectation of Success: Implementing a threshold-based trigger (Landherr) to control the load-based scaling mechanism of Aziz was presented as a simple and predictable integration of known technologies.

Ground 3: Obviousness over London in view of Camiel - Claims 1, 2, 19, 20, and 22 are obvious over London in view of Camiel.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: London ("POPCORN – A Paradigm for Global-Computing," a 1998 thesis) and Camiel ("The Shared Object POPCORN System," a 1999 thesis).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that London's "Popcorn" system disclosed a complete pay-per-use distributed computing model. It taught application providers ("buyers") deploying concurrent programs ("computelets") onto a network of seller computers. London described metering resource usage by measuring Java Operations ("JOPs") and charging users via an abstract currency ("popcoins"). Petitioner asserted that Camiel, which described the same Popcorn system, added a "LoadBalancer" that functions as the claimed resource manager. Camiel’s LoadBalancer would activate additional resources by moving computations to faster machines when performance on a current machine dropped below a "Threshold factor," directly teaching activation based on demand.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine London and Camiel because Camiel is a direct and explicit enhancement of the system disclosed in London. Camiel’s LoadBalancer was designed specifically to improve the efficiency of the Popcorn system, making the combination not just a logical step but an intended evolution of the same technology.
    • Expectation of Success: As Camiel’s work was an extension of the London system, a POSITA would have had a very high expectation of success in combining their teachings to create a more efficient, load-balanced, pay-per-use computing network.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations based on Foster ("The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure") in view of Grimshaw-1 and Grimshaw-2 (describing the Legion system), and Neuman ("The Propsero Resource Manager") in view of London.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "first application": Petitioner proposed this term be interpreted broadly to include any collection of computer program instructions, without regard to arbitrary divisions between "modules" and "applications." This construction allows prior art that monitors an entire system (e.g., a VSF) to meet limitations directed at a single application.
  • "application provider": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as the entity that deploys the application onto the network. This distinguishes the active provider from passive end-users, a distinction the Patent Owner relied upon during original prosecution to overcome prior art.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-7, 19, 20, and 22 of the ’784 patent as unpatentable.