PTAB

IPR2017-02148

Unified Patents Inc v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Pausing Move/Copy Operations
  • Brief Description: The ’229 patent discloses a user interface for file copy or move operations that includes a pause feature. The system allows a user to suspend a resource-intensive file transfer, freeing system resources for other tasks, and then later resume the operation from the point it was paused.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground I: Obviousness over Wiese and Chowdhury - Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-11, 14-16, 18, and 19 are obvious over Wiese in view of Chowdhury.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wiese (Patent 6,108,707) and Chowdhury (Patent 6,026,439).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wiese disclosed the core functionality of a file transfer method that can be suspended to yield computer resources (e.g., the CPU) for other user-initiated tasks, and which resumes after the other task is complete. This teaches the claimed pausing and resuming of a copy operation to make the system available for other processing. Petitioner asserted that Chowdhury supplemented Wiese by teaching an explicit, user-facing PAUSE and PLAY (resume) Application Programming Interface (API) for file transfers, allowing a user to directly control the suspension and resumption through a user interface.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine the references to improve the user experience of Wiese’s system. Adding Chowdhury’s explicit PAUSE/PLAY functions would make Wiese's file transfer more responsive to direct user input and provide the user with greater, more intuitive control over system resources, which is aligned with Wiese's stated goal of improving system responsiveness.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references address pausable file transfers, and integrating a user-facing API (Chowdhury) into a background process that already suspends/resumes (Wiese) was a predictable application of known software design principles.

Ground II: Obviousness over Wiese, Chowdhury, Miller, and Day - Claims 3-5, 12, 13, and 17 are obvious over Wiese in view of Chowdhury, Miller, and Day.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wiese (Patent 6,108,707), Chowdhury (Patent 6,026,439), Miller (Patent 5,553,083), and Day (RFC 520, June 1973).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground I to teach the limitations in dependent claims related to tracking the pause location. Petitioner argued that Miller disclosed using a "frame data structure" to record the status of a file transfer, including which blocks or frames have not been successfully transmitted. Day was cited for teaching a "file pointer" that represents an index or address within a file. The combination of Miller and Day taught the claimed concept of "writing an index to a storage area" that includes a "pointer to the second data portion" (i.e., the resume point) and subsequently "reading an index" to resume the transfer.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would add the tracking mechanism of Miller and Day to the pausable file transfer system of Wiese and Chowdhury to implement a robust resume feature. This combination would ensure that upon resuming, the transfer could accurately restart from the correct point, which is a necessary and obvious component for making a pause/resume feature functional and reliable.

Ground IV: Obviousness over Romrell and Chowdhury - Claim 1 is obvious over Romrell in view of Chowdhury.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Romrell (Patent 6,396,805) and Chowdhury (Patent 6,026,439).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Romrell disclosed a system for recovering from data transmission disruptions that also included a user-selectable "deferred continuation option." This option allowed a user to "checkpoint" (i.e., pause) a download at any time, store the partially-downloaded data, and resume it later from an offset. This taught all the core steps of claim 1: reading a first data portion, pausing in response to a user request, making resources available (by allowing the user to "browse elsewhere"), and resuming by reading a second data portion. Chowdhury's explicit PAUSE/PLAY API was presented as an alternative, more user-friendly interface for this same functionality.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Chowdhury’s clear and explicit "pause" and "play" functions with Romrell's underlying checkpoint-and-resume data transfer process. This would provide a more intuitive user interface than Romrell's "deferred continuation" terminology, reducing user confusion and making it clearer that the user is in direct control of the pausing and resuming process.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claim 7 based on the combination of Wiese, Chowdhury, and Raucci (a 1997 guide to the web), arguing Raucci’s disclosure of a progress bar for web document transfers rendered it obvious to add a display showing the amount of data copied.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the term “computer system is available for other processing operations,” which was added during prosecution to secure allowance, should be construed to mean that a substantial portion of the system resources (e.g., processor, memory, network resources) being used by the copy operation are freed for use by another task.
  • Petitioner further contended that numerous claim limitations reciting "means for..." (e.g., "means for reading," "means for pausing") in claims 10-14 and 16-19 are means-plus-function limitations under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Petitioner identified the corresponding structure for these functions as a general-purpose computer or information handling system programmed to perform the steps detailed in the specification’s flowcharts and figures.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’229 patent as unpatentable.