Rackspace Hosting Inc v. Clouding Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2013-00519
• Patent #: 7,032,089
• Filed: August 19, 2013
• Petitioner(s): Rackspace Hosting, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Clouding IP, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-24

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Data Synchronization
• Brief Description: The ’089 patent describes methods and systems for synchronizing data between primary and secondary computer storage areas for backup and disaster recovery. The invention purports to improve efficiency by first determining whether a storage object contains "relevant" data before performing a "copy-on-read" operation to a replica storage area.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Gold - Claims 1-24 are anticipated by Gold under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Gold (International Publication No. WO 99/12098).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gold, which discloses a system for periodically backing up a local file system, teaches every limitation of claims 1-24. For the key limitation of "determining whether the first storage object contains relevant data," Petitioner asserted that Gold's file differencing module (FDM) performs this function by filtering out irrelevant files—such as temporary internet files, cache files, and swap files—before processing the backup list. For claims requiring comparison, Gold's system compares files on the local system to the backup server using a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) to identify new or modified files. Gold then reads and copies only the new or changed data blocks to the backup apparatus, meeting the read and copy limitations.
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Gold's filtering of files based on type (e.g., temporary vs. permanent) is a direct disclosure of determining data relevancy prior to backup, which was the feature added during prosecution to overcome prior art.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Pruett - Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 13, 15, and 16 are anticipated by Pruett under §102(b).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Pruett (Patent 5,778,389).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pruett, which discloses a system for synchronizing source and target directories, anticipates a subset of the challenged claims. Petitioner mapped the "determining... relevant data" limitation to Pruett's disclosure that a user can specify that only non-hidden files should be synchronized or can provide an "action" file to identify specific subdirectories to be ignored. In both cases, Pruett determines whether an object is relevant to the user before processing it further. If an object is deemed irrelevant (hidden or ignored), Pruett selects the next object without reading or copying the irrelevant one. Pruett also teaches comparing file contents (via date-time stamps) to determine if they are identical before copying changed contents to a target directory.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Carson and Pruett - Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 13, 15, and 16 are obvious over Carson in view of Pruett under 35 U.S.C. §103.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Carson (Patent 5,978,805) and Pruett (Patent 5,778,389).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Carson discloses a method for synchronizing files between two remote systems and was the primary reference used by the Examiner to reject the claims during original prosecution. The applicants overcame this rejection by adding the limitation of "determining whether the first storage object contains relevant data." Petitioner contended that Pruett explicitly teaches this missing element by disclosing methods to exclude certain files or directories (e.g., hidden files) from synchronization based on user-defined criteria, thus determining their relevance.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Carson and Pruett to improve the efficiency of Carson's synchronization system. Both references address the same field of data synchronization. Incorporating Pruett's feature of transferring only relevant data into Carson's system would have been a common-sense step to reduce the amount of data transferred between local and remote file systems, a stated goal of Carson.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings because adding Pruett's filtering logic to Carson's existing synchronization framework would not have required significant changes to Carson's architecture and would have yielded the predictable result of a more efficient data transfer process.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "determin[e/ing] whether the first storage object contains relevant data": Petitioner proposed this phrase should be construed to mean "determin[e/ing] whether the first storage object contains useful data," based on the specification's interchangeable use of "relevant" and "useful." Petitioner emphasized that this step is distinct from the subsequent "comparing the contents" step recited in certain claims, as it involves an initial screening for data utility before any content comparison occurs.
• "Copy-on-read mode": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a mode where data is written to a second storage medium after the data is read from a first storage medium," based on explicit definitions in the specification.
• Means-Plus-Function Terms: Petitioner addressed several means-plus-function limitations (e.g., "selecting means," "determining means"), identifying the claimed function and mapping it to corresponding structures disclosed in the specification, such as general-purpose "modules" or "instructions."

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-24 of the ’089 patent as unpatentable.