PTAB

IPR2015-00599

Apple Inc v. FarSTone Tech Inc

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Computer Equipment Having a Prompt Access Function and Related Method
Brief Description: The ’835 patent is directed to computer backup and recovery systems. The technology purports to describe a system and method for providing a "prompt access function" that allows a user to display, select, and restore the "status" of a computer system from one or more created "recovery units."

Prior Art Relied Upon: Gold (Patent 6,785,786).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gold, which teaches a data backup and recovery system, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Gold describes a client computer coordinating with a backup apparatus. During a backup, the system creates a "Directory Tree File" (DTF), which constitutes a "snap-shot" of all files and thus a "recovery unit" reflecting the system's status at that time. Gold’s system includes a graphical user interface (displaying system) that allows a user to "change the restore view to an earlier backup," which Petitioner contended meets the "selecting means" limitation for selecting a prior system status to display and restore. Gold further disclosed backing up hardware configuration information, satisfying limitations in dependent claims.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Dunphy (Patent 5,638,509).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Dunphy discloses a backup/recovery system that enables a user to "recreate the state of the computer system at any selected point in time." The system creates a backup file system on backup media, which serves as the claimed "recovery unit." Dunphy’s system includes a graphical user interface that presents a temporal history of data files, allowing a user to navigate and select a particular point in time for restoration. Petitioner argued this functionality directly maps to the claimed displaying system with a "selecting means" for choosing a system status. Because Dunphy taught performing a full "dump of the contents of the hard drive," Petitioner contended it would have been obvious that the backup reflects the hardware's status and includes configuration information, as this data was routinely stored on the hard drive.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Symantec Ghost Implementation Guide, version 7.5 (2001) (“Ghost Manual”).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Ghost Manual, which describes commercial disk cloning and backup software, renders the claims obvious. The Ghost software creates an "image file" containing all information required to recreate a complete disk, which Petitioner equated to the claimed "recovery unit." The software included a "Ghost Explorer" graphical user interface that allowed a user to select an image file and display its contents. Petitioner contended that because the image file contains the entire contents of the hard disk, selecting and displaying the image file is equivalent to selecting and displaying a system status corresponding to the time of the image's creation. The system could then be restored to that status. The manual also disclosed that backups include hardware configuration data like Windows registry files, meeting limitations of the dependent claims.

"selecting means" (Claim 1): Petitioner dedicated significant argument to this means-plus-function term. The core contention was that the ’835 patent specification is fatally deficient because it fails to disclose any corresponding structure for the claimed function of "selecting a status corresponding to said processing system." Petitioner argued that the patent merely states that a "displaying system" has a "selecting means" without describing what that structure is, rendering the claims indefinite and non-amenable to construction.
Construction for IPR Purposes: Despite arguing for indefiniteness, Petitioner noted that for the purpose of the IPR analysis, it would adopt the construction advanced by the Patent Owner in co-pending litigation—namely, that the corresponding structure is a "user interface and input devices" (e.g., keyboard and mouse). Petitioner applied this construction in its mapping of the prior art references, arguing that even under the Patent Owner's interpretation, the claims were obvious.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7 and 9-13 of the ’835 patent as unpatentable.