PTAB

IPR2013-00144

Veeam Software Corp v. Symantec Corp

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Method and System for Selective File Imaging Using Snapshots
Brief Description: The ’682 patent discloses methods for creating a backup image file of selected items from a computer storage volume. The invention purports to solve the problem of excessive disk space consumption associated with traditional full-volume backups by using a point-in-time snapshot of the volume instead.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Veritas Database Edition for Oracle ("Veritas Database") and Applicant Admitted Prior Art ("AAPA") from the ’682 patent’s specification.
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the only purported point of novelty in the ’682 patent—substituting a snapshot for a full-volume copy—was obvious. The AAPA, as described in the patent itself, already taught the process of selective imaging (classifying items, deleting unwanted items, and imaging the reduced volume). Veritas Database disclosed using "Storage Checkpoints," a snapshot technology, to create point-in-time backups specifically to solve the same problems of inefficient disk space and I/O overhead addressed by the ’682 patent.
- Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the efficient snapshotting technique of Veritas Database with the selective imaging method of AAPA. Both references were directed at solving the same problem of creating efficient backups. The combination was a simple substitution of one known element (snapshot) for another (full-volume copy) to achieve the predictable result of further reducing storage and I/O demands.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination merely applied a known technique (snapshotting) to a known process (selective imaging) to yield predictable improvements in efficiency.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Ohran (Application # 2003/0101321).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Ohran disclosed every element of the challenged claims. Ohran described a method for backing up original data to a "snapshot copy" containing only the data blocks designated as "desired to be protected." The method involved classifying items as desired or undesired, enabling a "static snapshot" of at least the desired data blocks, and then imaging those desired data blocks from the snapshot to a backup copy. Ohran further disclosed that users could continue to access the primary storage while the backup occurred and that undesired blocks could be effectively deleted from the snapshot view, anticipating the limitations of the dependent claims.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Tretau I ("Implementing the IBM TotalStorage NAS 300G").
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tretau I, which described an IBM storage appliance, taught the complete claimed method. Tretau I explained how to use "point-in-time image copies" (snapshots) that are explicitly not full-volume copies to perform backups. The reference included a graphical user interface showing a user selecting specific folders from a snapshot view for backup. The process concluded by imaging the selected items into a .bkf backup file. This process directly mapped to the limitations of claim 4. Tretau I also taught classifying items by selecting them from a list and effectively deleting unselected items from the backup, anticipating claims 6 and 11.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges. These included combining Veritas Database, AAPA, and VxFS (a Veritas file system guide) for claim 11; Ohran in view of Barker ("Storage Area Network Essentials") for claims 7 and 8; Tretau I in view of Tretau II (an IBM integration guide) for claims 7 and 9; and Tretau I in view of Barker for claim 8. These grounds relied on adding teachings for specific implementation details, such as freezing a volume or flushing an application's state to disk before creating a snapshot.

"Image": Petitioner proposed construing "image" as "one or more copied data blocks, sectors, or clusters." This construction was argued to be critical to the patentability argument, as the ’682 patent specification explicitly distinguished its block-level "image" approach from prior art "file-by-file" backup methods.
"Deleting": For dependent claim 11, Petitioner argued that "deleting" should be given its broadest reasonable interpretation, including marking an item as hidden or, in the context of a backup selection interface, unselecting an item to exclude it from the final image.

Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 4, 6-9, and 11 of Patent 7,254,682 as unpatentable.