Oracle Corp v. Clouding IP LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2013-00273
• Patent #: 7,065,637
• Filed: May 8, 2013
• Petitioner(s): Oracle Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Clouding IP, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 5, 7-9

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System for Providing Configurable Resources
• Brief Description: The ’637 patent relates to a system for dynamically allocating and configuring computing resources from a resource pool to create custom computing environments. The technology facilitates the rapid provisioning of systems, such as for "crash and burn" scenarios in software development, via a remote user interface.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 7-9 are Anticipated by Patterson under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Patterson (Patent 7,093,005).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Patterson, which discloses a system for creating "instant data centers" or "virtual server farms," teaches every element of claims 7-9. Independent claim 9’s requirement for a "visual construction" of the computing environment via a user interface was allegedly met by Patterson’s graphical drag-and-drop editor used to design server farm layouts. Petitioner asserted Patterson’s interface allows a user to specify hardware types, operating systems, and applications, and to activate the configured system. Further, Patterson’s disclosure of creating and storing server images or "snapshots" was argued to meet the limitations of making, saving, and instantiating a device from a stored configuration. For dependent claims 7 and 8, Petitioner contended that Patterson’s user interface allows specification of shared storage (via a Network Attached Storage option) and private storage (a local boot volume for each server), which is allocated to be accessible for a specific user.

Ground 2: Claim 5 is Obvious over Patterson in view of Schilit

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Patterson (Patent 7,093,005) and Schilit (a 1995 publication titled "Context-Aware Computing Applications").
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Patterson disclosed all limitations of the claims except for the hardware devices comprising a hand-held device, PDA, or similar portable terminal, as recited in claim 5. Schilit was cited for its disclosure of context-aware computing environments that explicitly utilize hand-held devices, such as the "PARCTAB," which acts as a graphics terminal within a networked system.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to incorporate the hand-held devices taught by Schilit into the configurable server environment of Patterson. This combination would have been a predictable design choice to allow for remote administration or interaction with the data center from portable devices, which was a known and desirable feature at the time.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in making this combination, as it involved integrating a known type of user terminal (a hand-held device) into a known type of configurable computing system.

Ground 3: Claims 5 and 7-9 are Obvious over Aziz in view of Verissimo

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Aziz (Patent 6,779,016) and Verissimo (Patent 5,841,654).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Aziz discloses the core functionality of the challenged claims by teaching a system for creating Virtual Server Farms (VSFs) from a shared computing grid. Aziz’s system allows customers to specify hardware, operating systems, and software platforms via a web-based "virtual provisioning console." This was argued to meet the base limitations of creating a configurable computing environment. Verissimo was introduced for its teachings on user interfaces for configuring networked industrial devices, including generating graphical representations of the network, creating and saving configuration files, and using hand-held sensor devices.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the high-level VSF provisioning system of Aziz with the specific user interface and configuration management techniques taught by Verissimo to improve its functionality. Petitioner argued that Verissimo’s methods for generating, saving, copying, and downloading configuration files represented a well-known and desirable approach that a POSITA would naturally apply to the VSF configurations in Aziz. Verissimo’s disclosure of hand-held devices in a configurable network also provided the motivation to include such devices in Aziz’s system to meet claim 5.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been straightforward, as it involved applying conventional UI design principles and file management techniques (from Verissimo) to the specific context of server provisioning (in Aziz), a predictable implementation choice.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Aziz with ClusterX (a commercial software guide) and/or Solaris CDE (a user guide), but relied on similar arguments. These combinations aimed to show that combining Aziz's VSF system with known commercial clustering software or desktop environments would have rendered the claims obvious by providing established user interfaces for configuration, backup, and restoration.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner adopted the claim constructions previously set by the Board in the related IPR2013-00099 proceeding for key terms in independent claim 9.
  • "Visual construction": Construed to mean "a representation of the combination of hardware, software, and communication components," which can be textual or graphical. This construction is broad enough to cover the graphical editors and textual configuration lists shown in the prior art.
  • "Configuration": Construed as the "arrangement of software, hardware, and communication components." This supports the argument that the prior art's methods for defining server roles, network layouts, and software stacks meet this limitation.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 5 and 7-9 of the ’637 patent as unpatentable.