PTAB

IPR2013-00273

Oracle Corp v. CLoudIng IP LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Providing Configurable Resources to Create a Computing Environment
  • Brief Description: The ’637 patent describes a system that allows a user to remotely create a customized computing environment from a pool of configurable resources. The system is designed for rapid allocation and de-allocation of resources ("crash and burn" systems), particularly for software development and testing scenarios, using a web-based 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 discloses every limitation of claims 7, 8, and 9. Patterson teaches a system for creating an "instant data center" where a user can, via a graphical user interface, design a logical server farm by selecting and connecting icons representing computer hardware. This design can be saved as a "server image" or "DNA" and then instantiated on demand. Patterson's UI allows users to specify hardware types, operating systems, and software, satisfying the core limitations of independent claim 9. For dependent claim 7, Patterson discloses allocating shared "Network Attached Storage." For dependent claim 8, Patterson discloses allocating private, per-node storage (e.g., a boot volume), which is accessible to a specific user (e.g., a root or administrative user).

Ground 2: Claim 5 is obvious over Patterson in view of Schilit under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Patterson (Patent 7,093,005) and Schilit (Context-Aware Computing Applications).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Patterson was asserted to teach the base system of claim 1, from which claim 5 depends. Claim 5 adds the limitation that the hardware devices must comprise at least one hand-held device, PDA, cell phone, etc. Petitioner argued that Schilit, which describes "context-aware computing," explicitly discloses a small, hand-held device called a PARCTAB that acts as a graphics terminal for interacting with remote hosts. Schilit teaches using these devices within a reconfigurable computing environment.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Patterson's server management system with the hand-held device technology of Schilit. This would allow for the convenient remote management and configuration of Patterson's "instant data centers" from portable devices, which was a well-known trend and desirable feature for system administrators.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in integrating a known client device like the PARCTAB with a server-side management system like Patterson's, as it represented a straightforward application of known networking and user interface principles.

Ground 3: Claims 5 and 7-9 are obvious over Aziz in view of Verissimo under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • 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 a system for creating "Virtual Server Farms" (VSFs) from a large computing grid. Aziz teaches that a customer can use a "virtual provisioning console" (web pages) to specify the number of tiers, computing elements, hardware, and software platforms for a custom VSF. This was argued to teach the core elements of the claims. Verissimo, which describes a system for configuring field-mounted hardware devices, was introduced to supplement Aziz's teachings. Verissimo discloses a UI that generates a graphical representation of a network, creates a configuration file based on user selections, and allows saving that file, mapping to the "copy of a device configuration" limitations. Verissimo also teaches the use of hand-held devices (a temperature sensor), addressing the limitation in claim 5.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the high-level, dynamic VSF provisioning of Aziz with the more detailed configuration file management and UI features of Verissimo. This combination would create a more robust and user-friendly system, providing the benefits of Aziz's flexible architecture with Verissimo's granular control and configuration-saving capabilities.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating a front-end configuration tool like that in Verissimo with a back-end dynamic resource allocation system like Aziz's was a predictable convergence of known technologies to enhance system functionality.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that: claims 7-9 are obvious over Aziz in view of ClusterX (a cluster management software guide); claim 5 is obvious over Aziz in view of ClusterX and Solaris CDE (a desktop environment guide); and claim 9 is obvious over Aziz in view of Solaris CDE. These grounds relied on similar logic, using ClusterX and Solaris CDE to provide specific teachings on user interfaces, configuration management, and PDA synchronization to supplement Aziz's VSF system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner adopted the claim constructions used by the Board in the related IPR2013-00099 proceeding for key terms in claim 9:
    • "Visual construction" was construed to mean "a representation of the combination of hardware, software, and communication components," which could be textual or graphical.
    • "Configuration" was construed to mean "arrangement of software, hardware, and communication components."
    • "Resources" was construed to mean "any hardware, software or communication components in the system."

5. Relief Requested

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