Unified Patents Inc. v. Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. LTD., IPR2017-01467 (PTAB May 30, 2017)

IPR2017-01467 Petition
U.S. Patent 6,690,400

Filed on behalf of Unified Patents Inc.
By: Vincent J. Galluzzo, Reg. No. 67,830
Teresa Stanek Rea, Reg. No. 30,427
Crowell & Moring LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Tel: (202) 624-2781
Email: vgalluzzo@crowell.com
Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518

Ashraf Fawzy, Reg. No. 67,914
Unified Patents Inc.
1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Floor 10
Washington, D.C. 20009
Tel: (202) 805-8931
Email: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________________________________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________________________________________
UNIFIED PATENTS INC.

Petitioner
v.
GLOBAL EQUITY MANAGEMENT (SA) PTY. LTD.

Patent Owner
IPR2017-01467
Patent 6,690,400
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF

U.S. PATENT 6,690,400
CHALLENGING CLAIMS 14, 6, 10, and 15
UNDER 35 U.S.C. 312 AND 37 C.F.R. 42.104
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. MANDATORY NOTICES .............................................................................1

A. Real Party-in-Interest ...................................................................................1
B. Related Matters ............................................................................................1
C. Counsel ........................................................................................................5
D. Service Information, Email, Hand Delivery, and Postal .............................5
II. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
42.104 ...........................................................................................................6
A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. 42.104(a) ....................................6
B. Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b) and Relief
Requested .....................................................................................................6
III. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................7
IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND.................................................................9
A. Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) ..........................................................10
B. Disk Partitioning ........................................................................................11
V. OVERVIEW OF THE 400 PATENT ..........................................................13
A. Summary of the Disclosure .......................................................................13
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .............................................................18
C. Prosecution History....................................................................................19
VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................20
A. Claim Terms for Which Patent Owner Has Agreed to Constructions ......22
B. New Terms .................................................................................................27
VII. CLAIMS 14, 6, 10, AND 15 ARE OBVIOUS OVER RUFF IN VIEW OF
MADDEN .......................................................................................................30
A. Overview of Ruff ........................................................................................30
B. Overview of Madden .................................................................................33
C. Motivation to Combine Ruff and Madden .................................................34
D. Claim 1 is Obvious over Ruff in View of Madden ....................................39
E. Claim 2 is Obvious over Ruff in View of Madden ....................................57
i
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
F. Claim 3 is Obvious over Ruff in View of Madden ....................................58
G. Claim 4 is Obvious over Ruff in View of Madden ....................................61
H. Claim 6 is Obvious over Ruff in View of Madden ....................................61
I. Claim 10 is Obvious over Ruff in View of Madden ..................................64
J. Claim 15 Is Obvious over Ruff in View of Madden ..................................65
VIII. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................66
ii
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
I. MANDATORY NOTICES
A. Real Party-in-Interest
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1), Unified Patents Inc. (Unified or
Petitioner) certifies that Unified is the real party-in-interest, and further certifies
that no other party exercised control or could exercise control over Unifieds
participation in this proceeding, the filing of this petition, or the conduct of any
ensuing trial. In this regard, Unified has submitted voluntary discovery. See
EX1005 (Petitioners Voluntary Interrogatory Responses).
B. Related Matters
U.S. Patent 6,690,400 (400 Patent (EX1001)) is owned by Global Equity
Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. (GEMSA or Patent Owner). See EX1006
(Ericsson Complaint) at 7.
The 400 Patent is involved in another Inter Partes Review proceeding,
eBay Inc. et al. v. Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd., Case No. IPR2016-
01828 (1828 IPR), where those Petitioners argued that Claims 1, 2, 16, and 28
of the 400 Patent are obvious over certain prior art. On April 21, 2017, the Board
instituted review on Claims 1 and 2 of the 400 Patent in the 1828 IPR. See
EX1007 (1828 IPR Institution Decision). This Petition does not rely on the same
art as in the 1828 IPR, nor does it request review of Claims 16 and 28.
1
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Since October 30, 2015, GEMSA has filed lawsuits in the Eastern District of
Texas and elsewhere alleging infringement of the 400 Patent, as summarized in
the following chart.
Case Caption Date Filed
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. AirBNB, Inc., No.

10/30/2015
2:15-cv-01700 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Alibaba.com, Inc.

et al., No. 2:15-cv-01702 (E.D. Tex.); transferred to the
10/30/2015
Northern District of California, No. 3:17-cv-02177, on
4/19/2017
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Priceline Group,

10/30/2015
Inc. et al., No. 2:15-cv-01703 (E.D. Tex.)

10/30/2015

10/30/2015
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Expedia.com et

1/29/2016
al., No. 2:16-cv-00095 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Hotels.com, L.P.

1/29/2016
et al., No. 2:16-cv-00096 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v.

1/29/2016
CruiseShipCenters, L.P. et al., No. 2:16-cv-00097 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. eBay, Inc., No.

2:16-cv-00098 (E.D. Tex.); transferred to the Northern District 1/29/2016
of California, No. 4:17-cv-02178, on 4/19/2017
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Travelocity USA

1/29/2016
et al., No. 2:16-cv-00099 (E.D. Tex.)
2
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Travago GmbH et

1/29/2016
al., No. 2:16-cv-00100 (E.D. Tex.);
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Orbitz

1/29/2016
Worldwide, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-cv-00101 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Hotwire, Inc. et

1/29/2016
al., No. 2:16-cv-00102 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. TripAdvisor, Inc.,

1/29/2016
No. 2:16-cv-00103 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Hipmunk, Inc.,

1/29/2016
No. 2:16-cv-00104 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Ericsson, Inc.,

6/14/2016
No. 2:16-cv-00618 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Johnson &

6/14/2016
Johnson USA, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00619 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Philips, Inc., No.

6/14/2016
2:16-cv-00620 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. SAP America,

6/14/2016
Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00621 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Siemens

6/14/2016
Corporation, No. 2:16-cv-00622 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. The Nasdaq OMX

6/14/2016
Group, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-cv-00623 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Ticketleap.com,

6/14/2016
LLC, No. 2:16-cv-00624 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Live Nation

Entertainment, Inc. (d/b/a Ticketmaster, Inc.), No. 2:16-cv- 6/14/2016
00625 (E.D. Tex.)
3
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Ubisoft Studio,

6/14/2016
Inc. (d/b/a Ubisoft), No. 2:16-cv-00626 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. General Electric

6/14/2016
Company, No. 2:16-cv-00627 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. McGraw Hill

Financial, Inc. (d/b/a S&P Global and S&P Capital IQ), No. 6/14/2016
2:16-cv-00628 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Zynga, Inc., No.

6/14/2016
2:16-cv-00629 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Alcatel-Lucent,

6/14/2016
Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00630 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Uber

6/14/2016
Technologies, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00631 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Artek Surfin

Chemicals, Ltd. (d/b/a Galata Chemicals, LLC), No. 2:16-cv- 6/14/2016
00632 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Netflix, Inc., No.

6/14/2016
2:16-cv-00633 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. AdRoll, Inc., No.

6/14/2016
2:16-cv-00634 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Spotify USA, Inc.,

6/14/2016
No. 2:16-cv-00635 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Hitachi America,

6/14/2016
Ltd., No. 2:16-cv-00636 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Zillow, Inc. et al.,

6/14/2016
No. 2:16-cv-00637 (E.D. Tex.)
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

7/27/2016
et al., No. 2:16-cv-00823 (E.D. Tex.)
4
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Alibaba Group

Holding, Ltd. et al., No. 2:16-cv-01074 (E.D. Tex.);
10/4/2016
transferred to the Northern District of California, No. 3:17-cv-
02435, on 4/28/2017
Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Ericsson, Inc.,

No. 2:17-cv-00076 (E.D. Tex.); transferred to the Eastern 1/25/2017
District of Virginia, Case No. 3:17-cv-00081 on 1/26/2017
Additionally, on July 22, 2016, Amazon Web Services, Inc. and VADATA,
Inc. filed suit in the Eastern District of Virginia against GEMSA seeking
declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of the 400 Patent in
Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd., No.
3:16-cv-00619 (E.D. Va.).
C. Counsel
Vincent J. Galluzzo (Reg. No. 67,830) will act as lead counsel; Teresa
Stanek Rea (Reg. No. 30,427), Jonathan Stroud (Reg. No. 72,518), and Ashraf
Fawzy (Reg. No. 67,914) will act as back-up counsel.
D. Service Information, Email, Hand Delivery, and Postal
Unified consents to electronic service at vgalluzzo@crowell.com,
jonathan@unifiedpatents.com, and afawzy@unifiedpatents.com. Petitioner can be
reached at Crowell & Moring LLP, 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20004, Tel.: (202) 624-2781, Fax: (202) 628-8844 and Unified
5
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Patents Inc., 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Floor 10, Washington, D.C. 20009,
Tel.: (650) 999-0899.
II. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.

42.104
A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. 42.104(a)
Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
B. Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b) and Relief

Requested
In view of the prior art and evidence presented herein, Claims 14, 6, 10,
and 15 (challenged claims) of the 400 Patent are unpatentable and should be
cancelled.1 The prior art references identified below present a reasonable
likelihood that the challenged claims of the 400 Patent are unpatentable and
therefore review of the challenged claims should be granted. See 35 U.S.C.
314(a).
1
The 400 Patent issued from a patent application filed prior to enactment of the
America Invents Act (AIA). Accordingly, pre-AIA statutory framework applies.
6
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Exhibit
Proposed Ground of Unpatentability
Nos.
Claims 14, 6, 10, and 15 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over
EX1003 &
U.S. Patent 5,675,769 (Ruff) in view of U.S. Patent 6,178,503
EX1004
(Madden).
Section VII identifies where each element of the Challenged Claims is found
in the prior art patents, with support from the Declaration of Mr. Kendyl Romn
(Romn Declaration) (EX1002). 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers
of the supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenges are provided
above and the relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised are provided in
VII. Exhibits EX1001EX1025 are attached.
III. INTRODUCTION
The challenged claims in the 400 Patent recite a graphical user interface
(GUI) displaying graphics representing various partitioned storage devices and
their contents in a computer. Sole independent claim 1 requires four elements: a
Menu Bar, a Cabinet Bar, a Storage Window, and a Cabinet Window, as
illustrated below:
7
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
EX1001 (400 Patent), at Fig. 1 (highlighting added).2
While the 400 Patent specification describes an interface for manipulating
partitions and booting operating systems, the challenged claims do not recite most
of that functionality. What they do claim is admittedly found in the prior art, such
as methods of activating toolbars and buttons by mouse-clicks or drag-and-drop
mouse motions by a user. Similar solutions existed in the art for years prior,
including GUIs for controlling disk partitioning and booting operations.
2
Unless otherwise noted, all color highlighting and annotations are added.
8
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
One of those solutions, Ruff, taught GUIs for manipulating disk partitions
like the one in the 400 Patent, as shown:
EX1003 (Ruff), at Fig. 6. Madden is another solution that shares an inventor with
and expands on Ruffs disclosure. Madden discloses organizing and booting
discrete operating systems using cabinets and partitions such as those disclosed and
controlled by the GUI of Ruff. These two references in combination render the
400 Patent obvious.
IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
The 400 Patent generally discloses using GUIs to manage disk partitioning
and operating system booting. As discussed, and as admitted by the 400 Patent,
9
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
these features were well known prior to September 29, 1999. See, e.g., EX1001
(400 Patent), at 1:5761.
A. Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs)
A graphical user interface, or GUI, is a visual interactive representation for
helping users understand and operate computer programs. EX1002 (Romn
Declaration) at 5260. Setting aside more antiquated examples, GUIs have
been sold with consumer products and widely used by the public since at least
1984, when Apple Computer began selling the Macintosh desktop computer; many
GUI interfaces in commercial products followed. Id. at 52. As developers
created and improved GUIs, terminology, designs, and standard practices evolved.
For example, in 1995 Alan Cooper published the textbook About Face: The
Essentials of User Interface Design, which disclosed and explained features of
GUIs, their uses, and their many optional design choices that designers could
experiment with to improve user experience and functionality. Id. at 5455.
As he and others explain, for convenience and ease of design, GUIs are
generally made up of self-contained building blocks called widgets,interactive
graphics such as scrollbars, text windows, and push buttons, which you use to
work with an application. EX1008 (X Window Users Guide), at 266. One early
standardized set of widgets for GUIs was called Motif, as shown below:
10
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Id. Various widgets can be arranged and combined to make various GUI layouts.
EX1002 (Romn Declaration) at 5660. One common widget is the file
cabinet. See EX1009 (Schneiderman), at 370 (Information hierarchies are the
most frequently represented metaphor[, e.g., . . . f]ile cabinet with folders and
documents . . . .). It was well within the skill in the art to select, exchange, and
arrange various widgets, to change those widgets, and to reorder them in various
GUI design choices. EX1002 (Romn Declaration) at 5960; see also EX1003
(Ruff), at 9:6610:4.
B. Disk Partitioning
Computer hard drives and solid-state disks are secondary storage devices
that can be used to boot, i.e., start, a computer and the associated operating system,
such as Windows, Linux, or Mac OS. EX1002 (Romn Declaration) at 82; see
11
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
3
also EX1011 (183 Patent), at 1:1315. Some secondary storage devices can be
divided into one or more smaller pieces of continuous segment[s] of storage
called partitions. Id. at 1:2324. Partitions can be demonstrated by a logical
diagram of secondary storage split into three partitions of varying memory size:
Partition 2
Partition 1 Partition 3
Storage Device A
EX1002 (Romn Declaration), at 83. The partitions are defined by their starting
location in the secondary storage device. A partition also has a size, a type (e.g.,
FAT or HPFS), and an indicator (known as a flag) that designates whether it is
an active partition. EX1011 (183 Patent), at 1:2426. The location of and
information about each of these partitions is maintained in a partition table.
EX1003 (Ruff), at 2:1323.
3
U.S. Patent No. 6,401,183 issued to one of the co-inventors of the 400 Patent
(Schumann Rafizadeh), was filed approximately five months before the application
that became the 400 Patent, and discloses a Storage Manager that dynamically
manipulates and partitions the secondary storage of a computer device. EX1011
(183 Patent), at Abstract.
12
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
As a users memory requirements change (e.g., a file or set of data grows or
shrinks), one must manage these partitions. See id. at 4:1625. One method
involves manually copying the necessary user and system data from the partition to
be manipulated into a temporary storage location or device. Id. at 4:2629. The
user can then run a disk utility program to modify the partition table and another
disk utility program to prepare the partition for use. Id. at 4:3740. Finally, the
user copies the data from the temporary location or device back into the modified
or new partition on the secondary storage device. Id. at 4:4044.
Manual partition management, in addition to being cumbersome, can be
confusing and dangerous for many computer users. See id. at 4:455:4. As early
as 1986, methods and applications were developed to let casual users manipulate
partitions safely and easily, EX1002 (Romn Declaration) at 88, solutions that
were improved upon by Apple, Microsoft, and others throughout the 1980s and
1990s. Id. at 8895.
V. OVERVIEW OF THE 400 PATENT
A. Summary of the Disclosure
The 400 Patent, Graphic User Interface for Resources Management of
Super Operating System Based Computers, discloses a graphic user interface
(GUI) that includes glyphs, or images, representing data storage devices and their
contents. See EX1001 (400 Patent) at Abstract (This invention is a Graphic User
13
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Interface (GUI) that enables a user to virtualize the system and to define secondary
storage physical devices through the graphical depiction of cabinets.). The 400
Patent concedes that these GUIs were known by those skilled in the art of
computer programming prior to filing. Id. at 3:1317.
The 400 Patent is generally directed to a GUI for manipulating partitions
and booting operating systems. This claimed GUI requires four primary
components, as illustrated in the embodiment of Figure 1 (below): the Menu Bar
(60),4 the Cabinet Bar (70),5 the Storage Window (80),6 and the Cabinet
Window (90).7 Also illustrated in Figure 1 are a Main Toolbar (65), and a
Cabinet Properties Window (30). Id. at 5:5359.
4
Called the Main Pull Down Menu Bar 60.
5
Called the Cabinet Selection Button Bar 70.
6
Called the Secondary Storage Partitions Window 80.
7
Called the Active Selected Cabinet Visible Partition Window 90.
14
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Id. at Fig. 1. Other embodiments of the 400 Patent include other windows
elements. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 10 (illustrating a Master Cabinet Visible Partition
Window 91).
In Figure 1, the Cabinet Bar (70) includes buttons (elements 20, 21) that
represent virtual storage devices called cabinets. Id. at 1:5767, 2:643:12,
6:1321.
15
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Id. at Fig. 1. These cabinets in turn represent memory partitions of hard-disk
drives and other secondary storage devices. Id. The Storage Window (80)
illustrates details of the various secondary storage devices and their related
partitions. Id.at 7:132.
Id. at Fig. 1. The Cabinet Window (90) is a detailed view of the particular cabinet
selected in the Cabinet Selection Button Bar. Id.
Id. at Fig. 1.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim challenged, and corresponds to Figure
1, as illustrated and described above:
1. A graphic user interface for displaying means for allocating

a computer device's resources to multiple operating system
environments, partitioned on individual virtual cabinets, on said
computer device, said graphic user interface comprising:
a main menu bar;
a cabinet selection button bar;
said cabinet selection button bar graphically representing at
least one virtual cabinet;
16
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
each said at least one virtual cabinet representing a discrete
operating system;
a secondary storage partitions window;
a cabinet visible partition window;
said secondary storage partitions window graphically
illustrating at least one partition of at least one secondary storage
device;
said cabinet visible partition window graphically illustrating a
cabinet record corresponding to a selected virtual cabinet on said
cabinet selection button bar; and
each said at least one cabinet visible partition window
representing an operating system plus application software, databases
and memory configured with said selected virtual cabinet.
Id. at claim 1.
Per the 400 Patent, the claimed GUI enables a user to allocate and manage
the resources of a computer system by defining one or more cabinets, each cabinet
containing one or more partitions of one or more existing software and/or data.
Id. at 5:913. The GUI enables a user to virtualize the system and to define
secondary storage physical devices through the graphical depiction of cabinets.
Id. at Abstract.
The 400 Patent acknowledges that partition software was well-known
before the filing date of the underlying application. For example, the specification
explains the original assignee, Flash Vos, sold a product called the Flash Vos
17
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Dynamic or Static Virtual Table of Contents (VTOC) [that] is part of a Storage
Manager, wherein relevant identifying information is contained for each Partition
of secondary storage. Id. at 2:643:1; see also id. at 2:5358 (Prior art known in
the industry includes . . . Flash Vos Dynamic or Static Virtual Table of Contents.).
Beyond EX1011 (the 183 Patent, discussed at note 3, supra), which
predates the 400 Patent, Patent Owner is also the assignee of another patent that
refers to and describes aspects of the 400 Patent. U.S. Patent 7,356,677 by
Rafizadeh (677 Patent) states that the function of the GUI described in the 400
Patent is to act as an interface to other functions, such as partition configuration.
EX1015 (677 Patent) at 7:49, 7:5556. According to the 677 Patent, the 400
Patent describes a graphical user interface that facilitates the use of a Super
Operating System, id. at 7:49, but does not otherwise provide novel
functionality. Notably, the super operating system limitation is recited only in
dependent claim 15 of the 400 Patent.
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) for the 400 Patent would
have a bachelors degree in computer science, computer engineering, or the
equivalent, with at least two years of experience in computer operating systems,
programs and databases, or graphical user interfaces. EX1002 (Romn
Declaration) at 50.
18
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
C. Prosecution History
The 400 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 09/409,013 (013
Application), which was filed on September 29, 1999. EX1001 (400 Patent) at
cover page. The 400 Patent does not claim the benefit of any prior U.S.,
international, or foreign application.8
The 013 Application received a first Office Action rejecting the pending
claims as obvious over a variety of references, EX1016 (400 Patent File History)
at 8692. Four months after the statutory deadline to file a reply, the applicant
petitioned to revive the 013 Application (with Reply).9 Id. at 9697. That Reply
8
The Specification and Inventor Declaration for the 013 Application state that the
application is related to the application Storage Manager for Computer Devices
and Method for Manipulating Secondary Storage, Ser. No. 90/283,418, Art Unit
2783, filed on Apr. 1, 1999 by Schumann Rafizadeh, assigned to Flash Vos, Inc.
Id. at 1:711; EX1016 (400 Patent File History), at 57 (reciting substantially
similar text). The New Application Transmittal form does not claim the benefit of
any other application. EX1016 (400 Patent File History), at 28.

9
37 C.F.R. 1.137(b). Applicant stated that the abandonment was unintentional,
though counsel of record earlier verified that no response ha[d] been filed to the
Office Action. Compare id. at 95 with id. at 96.
19
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
contained statements limiting the scope of the claims and further informed their
construction. Id. at 10712. These limitations are reflected in the claim
constructions proposed by Petitioner in VI, infra. After revival, the applicant
filed a Request for Continued Examination, and the Examiner allowed the claims
based on these statements. Id. at 19498.
VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent, such as the
400 patent, are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent. 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v.
Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 214446 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest
reasonable construction as the standard to be applied for claim construction in inter
partes reviews). However, federal district courts use a different standard to
construe patent claims than used in inter partes review. In district court
proceedings, claims are given their ordinary meaning ... as understood by a person
of skill in the art. Cuozzo Speed Techs. at 2142 (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). Moreover, only those terms that
are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Engg, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
(Fed. Cir. 1999).
20
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
The 400 Patent has been twice interpreted to date: first as construed by the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Global Equity Management
(SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Expedia, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00095-RWS-RSP (E.D.
Tex. Dec. 22, 2016) (the Expedia Litigation) (EX1017) under the Phillips
standard; and second as interpreted, preliminarily, for the purposes of institution,
by the Board in IPR2016-01828. EX1007 (1828 Institution Decision) at 912.
While the District Court construed claim terms in claim 1, the Board found no need
to construe the terms of claims 1 or 2 in the 1828 IPR at institution.10,11 Petitioner
likewise believes that express constructions of terms in claims 1 and 2 are not
necessary here for purposes of institution. To the extent Patent Owner argues for a
different claim construction under the BRI, however, the applicable terms
construed by the District Court are addressed below.
Petitioner also proposes constructions below for a means-plus-function
limitation in claim 2, as construction of means-plus-function terms is mandated.
See 35 U.S.C. 112, 6; 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3); In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d
10
Petitioner recognizes that the Board here is not bound by the preliminary
construction in IPR2016-01828.
11
The Board, like the District Court, found that it was unable to construe terms in
Claims 16 and 28 as indefinite; those claims are not at issue here.
21
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
1189, 119395 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc); see also Williamson v. Citrix Online,
LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). Petitioner also proposes
constructions below for certain claim terms (including some means-plus-function
limitations) in dependent claims not at issue in the Expedia Litigation or the earlier
1828 IPR. Any claim term not specifically discussed below should be given its
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, as commonly
understood by a POSA. Construction of these terms would be the same whether a
BRI or Phillips construction standard is used.
A. Claim Terms for Which Patent Owner Has Agreed to

Constructions
1. A graphic user interface for displaying means for

allocating a computer devices resources to multiple
operating system environments, partitioned on individual
virtual cabinets, on said computer device (Claim 1
Preamble)
The preamble of claim 1 should be construed to not be limiting, as [t]he
preamble simply states the intended use of the invention, as determined in the
1828 IPR and Expedia Litigation. Id. at 25, 27; EX1018 (1828 IPR POPR), at 11
(The preamble here is not limiting); see also TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph, 790 F.3d
1315, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (a preamble is not limiting where a patentee defines a
structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to
state a purpose or intended use for the invention (quotation marks omitted)). The
preamble here states an intended use or environment of the invention (i.e., a
22
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
graphical user interface for displaying means for allocating computer resources).
EX1018 (1828 IPR POPR), at 26; In re Otto, 50 C.C.P.A. 938, 940, 312 F.2d 937,
939 (C.C.P.A. 1963) (inclusion of the [environment worked on] by a structure
being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims).
The intrinsic record supports that the preamble is not limiting. For example,
in prosecution of the 400 Patent, the patentee distinguished the claims from the
prior art using limitations from the body of the claim, rather than any terms from
the preamble. See, e.g., EX1016 (400 Patent File History) at 10712, 14550,
17984; see also Am. Med. Sys. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (If the preamble is reasonably susceptible to being construed to be merely
duplicative of the limitations in the body of the claim (and was not clearly added to
overcome a prior art rejection), we do not construe it to be a separate limitation.
(quotation and modification marks omitted)) (emphasis added).
2. virtual cabinet (Claims 1, 2, 4)
This term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and is at least
broad enough to include a virtual storage device, capable of containing, typically
through the use of virtual table of content pointers, all (or partitions of) shared (or
non-shared) operating systems, application software (both OS dependent and No-
OS embedded), databases and memory, as construed in the Expedia Litigation and
as agreed to by Patent Owner in the earlier IPR. EX1017 (Claim Construction
23
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Order) at 3233; EX1018 (1828 IPR POPR) at 1011. See also EX1001 (400
Patent) at 2:4052, 5:2429; EX1016 (400 Patent File History) at 109.
3. cabinet selection button bar (Claim 1)
broad enough to include a collection of user-selectable graphical items, each
graphical item representing a virtual cabinet, as construed in the Expedia
Litigation and as agreed to by Patent Owner in the earlier IPR. EX1017 (Claim
Construction Order), at 30; EX1018 (1828 IPR POPR) at 23. See also EX1001
(400 Patent) at Fig. 1, 6:1321, 6:5663, 7:3439; EX1016 (400 Patent File
History) at 10910 (describing the cabinet selection bar as providing a visual
depiction of the virtual management of cabinets of the present invention).
4. secondary storage (Claim 1)
broad enough to include storage other than main memory, as construed in the
Expedia Litigation and agreed to by the Patent Owner in the 1828 IPR. EX1017
(Claim Construction Order), at 36; EX1018 (1828 IPR POPR) at 10. See also
EX1001 (400 Patent) at 1:5052, 2:16, 3:710.
5. secondary storage partitions window (Claim 1)
broad enough to include a window that depicts secondary storage devices and that
24
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
is configurable to depict their partitions, as construed in the Expedia Litigation
and agreed to by the Patent Owner in the 1828 IPR. EX1017 (Claim Construction
Order) at 39; EX1018 (1828 IPR POPR) at 29. See also EX1001 (400 Patent) at
Fig. 8, 7:132.
6. partition (Claims 1, 2)
broad enough to include a logical device corresponding to a distinct continuous
segment of physical secondary storage, as construed in the Expedia Litigation and
agreed to by the Patent Owner in the 1828 IPR. EX1017 (Claim Construction
Order) at 48; EX1018 (1828 IPR POPR) at 10. See also EX1001 (400 Patent) at
1:5765, 2:111, 3:3044.
7. cabinet visible partition window (Claims 1, 2)
broad enough to include a window that depicts one or more virtual cabinets and
that is configurable to depict their files and partitions, as construed in the Expedia
Litigation and as agreed to by Patent Owner in the 1828 IPR. EX1017 (Claim
Construction Order) at 42; EX1018 (1828 IPR POPR) at 27. See also EX1001
(400 Patent) at Figs. 810, 7:132.
25
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
8. secondary storage device (Claim 1)
broad enough to include a storage device other than a main memory device, as
construed in the Expedia Litigation and as agreed to by Patent Owner in the 1828
IPR. EX1017 (Claim Construction Order) at 36; EX1018 (1828 IPR POPR) at
2728. See also EX1001 (400 Patent) at 1:5052, 2:16, 3:710, 7:78.
9. cabinet record (Claims 1, 2, and 4)
This term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and, as the district
court found, is at least broad enough to be construed, just as virtual cabinet is
above, to mean at least a virtual storage device, capable of containing, typically
through the use of virtual table of content pointers, all (or partitions of) shared (or
non-shared) operating systems, application software (both OS dependent and No-
OS embedded), databases and memory, as construed in the Expedia Litigation and
as agreed to by Patent Owner in the earlier IPR. EX1017 (Claim Construction
Order) at 3233; EX1018 (1828 IPR POPR) at 11. See also EX1001 (400 Patent)
at 2:4052, 5:2429; EX1016 (400 Patent File History) at 109.
26
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
B. New Terms
1. means for manipulating said selected virtual cabinet

record through said cabinet visible partition window
(Claim 2)
This phrase should be construed under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6 to
include the recited function manipulating said selected virtual cabinet record
through said cabinet visible partition window and the following corresponding
structure or acts described in the specification, such as a pointer device such as a
mouse for performing the following acts, and equivalents thereof:
1. click and drag movements using a pointer device such as a mouse,

EX1001 (400 Patent), at 7:1322;
2. double clicking using a pointer device such as a mouse, id.; and
3. right clicking a pointer device over the selected partition using a

pointer device such as a mouse, id. at 7:2225;
to add[] partitions, delet[e] partitions, nam[e] the cabinet, assign[] an icon to the
cabinet, configur[e] partitions in the cabinet, defin[e] user access, defin[e] remote
management functions and boot[] the cabinet, in accordance with the Flash Vos
GUI. EX1001 (400 Patent), at 5:2935; see also id. at 7:132, Figs. 8, 9.
2. cabinet properties window (Claim 3)
broad enough to include a window that displays the properties of a cabinet, such
as the cabinet name. See EX1001 (400 Patent) at 6:176:19 (FIG. 1 further
depicts Cabinet Property Windows 30, within which are Cabinet Name Window
27
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
31, Primary Operating System Version Window 32, and Remote Manager Window
33 for each cabinet); id. at Fig. 1.
3. means for designating and illustrating one of said at least

one cabinet record as an active selected virtual cabinet
(Claim 4)
include the recited function designating and illustrating one of said at least one
cabinet record as an active selected virtual cabinet and the corresponding structure
or acts described in the specification, such as a visual display for displaying the
icons, and equivalents thereof, as explained below. See EX1001 (400 Patent) at
6:1321; 7:132. Specifically, the 400 Patent discloses displaying at least two
icons to differentiate an active selected virtual cabinet from the other cabinets
displayed in the GUI, as used in the Figures:
Virtual Cabinet Active Selected Virtual Cabinet
Id. at Fig. 1. The visual difference between these two icons, and the displaying of
these two different icons, provides the underlying structure and acts corresponding
to the recited function designating and illustrating one of said at least one cabinet
record as an active selected virtual cabinet.
28
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
4. means for remote management of any of said multiple
operating systems (Claim 10)
include the recited function remote management of any of said multiple operating
systems and the following corresponding structure or acts described in the
specification, and equivalents thereof: a remote computer accessible through the
Internet that can report or manipulate computer system environments, including
storage size, user time allocation, user privileges, sharing and security of data,
separations of potential users (such as parents and children, teachers and students
or classes), [and] different accounting periods and systems by use of support
management tools such as Intels Landesk, CAs Unicenter, Flash Vos and
Norton Utilities. EX1001 (400 Patent), at 2:2434, 4:26-29; see also id. at 4:12
16 (This GUI window allows the user to use the Internet to remotely select other
systems and organizations that are frequently accessed to be tailored and available
for direct communication with or without requiring a specific (OS Dependent or
Independent) browser or link up program.); id. at 6:4565.
5. super operating system (Claim 15)
This term is explicitly defined by the Patent Owner to mean an operating
system that allows a computer user to load multiple operating systems from
secondary storage into main memory. See EX1001 (400 Patent) at 1:4951
(Super operating systems allow computer users to load multiple operating systems
29
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
from secondary storage into main memory.); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick
Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (noting the patentee acts as a
lexicographer when the patentee clearly set[s] forth a definition of the disputed
claim term in either the specification or prosecution history).
VII. CLAIMS 14, 6, 10, AND 15 ARE OBVIOUS OVER RUFF IN VIEW
OF MADDEN
The following discusses the challenged claims of the 400 Patent, and how
they are rendered obvious in view of the asserted prior art. They are supported by
the evidence cited, including the Declaration of Mr. Kendyl Romn. See EX1002.
A. Overview of Ruff
Ruff, titled Method for Manipulating Disk Partitions, is directed to a
method that allows manipulation of disk partitions including displaying
information about a partition; moving a partition to a different location; resizing a
partition; and other operations. EX1003 (Ruff) at Abstract. Ruff provides a GUI
that allows users who are unfamiliar with technical intricacies to easily
manipulate IBM-compatible disk partitions, including extended partitions and
logical partitions. Id. That GUI is shown in Figure 6:
30
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Id. at Fig. 6.
The Ruff GUI includes a vertical Menu Bar (consisting of buttons HELP
and EXIT), a Cabinet Bar (120) (called a partition graph window), a Storage
Window (118) (called a drive box group window), and a Cabinet Window
(130) (called a partition list window). Id. at Fig. 6, 9:5110:26. Like the
embodiment illustrated in Figure 1 of the 400 Patent, Ruff also has a Main
Toolbar (134) (called an option box window) and a Cabinet Properties
Window (126) (called a legend). Id.
Ruff teaches that its GUI provides information regarding the partitions
presently defined by the partition table, including the names, relative positions, and
31
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
file system types of the partitions. Id. at 9:5861. While the Cabinet Bar (120)
of Figure 6 shows partitions by indicating their lettered drive name (e.g., C:),
Ruff teaches that other [c]olors or graphical patterns may be used in partition
graph 120 to denote the partitions, as well as a legend 126 that matches colors
to file system types or to partition characteristics. Id. at 9:6610:4. For
example, in Figure 6, partitions E: and F: are logical partitions. Id. at 10:46.
Ruff also teaches that the Cabinet Window (130) provides additional information
about the current selected partition, which in Figure 6 is partition C:. Id. at
10:814.
When a user modifies a partition using the GUI of Ruff, the reference
teaches an adjusting step that adjusts the size, location, and contents of the file
system structures as needed to reflect differences between the selected partition
and the modified partition. Id. at 6:4952. Ruff then follows the adjusting step
with an exiting step which may force[] the computer to reboot so that changes
in the partition table or file system structures will be detected by the operating
system. Id. at 6:5257.
Ruff does not explicitly disclose a GUI that is used to manipulate partitioned
disks associated with different operating systems. But Madden teaches managing
multiple operating systems on a single computers GUI.
32
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
B. Overview of Madden
Madden, titled Managing Multiple Operating Systems on a Single
Computer, is directed to improved boot-time support for graphical user
interfaces that have menus, tabs, non-ASCII characters, and other graphical user
interface components in the pre-boot environment. EX1004 (Madden), at
Abstract, 3:52. Madden teaches a boot-management software program which
provides users with a single menu for all available operating systems and operating
system modes on a given computer. Id. at 5:39. The GUI of Madden is shown
below:
Id. at Fig. 6. Madden contemplates complex GUIs that includes elements not
illustrated in the figures, such as [t]abs, dialogs, property pages, pop-up menus,
33
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
pull-down menus, scroll bars, radio buttons, push buttons, check boxes, and other
graphical user interface components. Id. at 19:616.
The boot management software of Madden includes organizing operating
systems and allowing users to select which operating system to boot. Id. at 3:40
41. These operating systems are stored simultaneously on one more hard disks or
other permanent storage devices that are either attached to or accessible (e.g., via
a network) to the computer to be booted. Id. at 3:4245. These permanent
storage devices hold operating systems . . . and other code and data. Id. at 5:59
61. Thus, Madden teaches not only a boot-time operating system selection
software, but also mechanisms for organizing the manner in which the multiple
operating systems are stored on the hard disk(s) including by the use of
partition[s], directories and directory subtrees. Id. at 4:410; see also id. at
8:4759 (To support more than one operating system 100 in a given disk 124
partition, one embodiment breaks out the operating systems 100 into separate
directories so that they can be booted individually.); id. at 10:2534.
C. Motivation to Combine Ruff and Madden
A POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the disk
partition and virtual cabinet manipulation GUI of Ruff with the teachings of
Madden that a virtual cabinet can represent a discrete operating system, and that
one can display that discrete operating system as a menu-selectable item in a GUI.
34
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
A POSA would have been motivated to make this combination at the time the 013
Application was filed for several reasons, including at least:
(i) that Madden teaches a further development on the concepts of Ruff,
and teaches that its disclosure can be extended with additional with
graphical user interface and application elements; and
(ii) they are in the same field of endeavor and solve the same problems,
i.e., manipulating partitions of file systems.
As to the first point, a POSA would have read the teachings of Ruff and
understood the following:
Ruff teaches the concept of manipulating partitions and virtual
cabinets via a GUI having various window and button bar layouts,
see, e.g., VII.A, supra; EX1002 (Romn Declaration), at 125;
Ruff discusses the specifics of preparing a partition for a particular
type of file system (e.g., FAT or HPFS), id.; and
Ruff teaches the concept of providing a GUI for configuring a boot
partition for a new OS, id.
While Ruff does not explicitly teach that its GUI virtual cabinets and partitions can
represent discrete operating systems, Madden does. Id. at 126.
A POSA would have read the teachings of Madden and come away with the
following understandings:
35
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Madden teaches the organization of discrete operating systems stored
on a number of hard disks or other storage devices, id. at 127;
Madden teaches organizing these discrete operating systems by
partitions, id.; and
Madden teaches selecting these discrete operating systems, and
therefore, the associated partitions, to boot by a GUI interface, id.
Therefore, Madden, which was filed more than three years after Ruff, expands on
the concepts taught in Ruff and improves on means of manipulating partitions as
they relate to operating systems and booting, at least by providing a GUI for
configuring and preparing different boot partitions. Id. at 128. Madden
represents a natural outgrowth of the teachings of Ruff to allow not only for
partition and virtual cabinet selection, but also for discrete operating system
selection through a GUI menu. Id.
A POSA would have been motivated to combine Ruff and Madden in this
way for any number of reasons. The obvious combination would be able to
(1) maintain and manage multiple operating systems on a single computer more
easily, more quickly, and more clearly with less error; (2) maintain separate
operating systems and program files from user files; and (3) easily and quickly
isolate or protect files related to distinct operating systems in the case of corrupted
file or operating systems. EX1002 (Romn Declaration) at 129-30.
36
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Other reasons include that the underlying structure and functionality of the
computer and storage devices in Ruff and Madden are the same (as they relate to
the operating systems). Id. Another reason is that Madden provides an explicit
motivation to extend the teachings of the simpler boot-time GUI of Madden to
include more complex GUI elements such as those taught in Ruff:
Tabs, dialogs, property pages, pop-up menus, pull-down menus, scroll

bars, radio buttons, push buttons, check boxes, and other graphical
user interface components can be implemented with bitmaps 130 in a
manner similar to the implementation of the menu 604 discussed
elsewhere herein. Those of skill in the art will readily understand the
equivalence, with respect to the boot-time graphical user interface
aspects 130, 132 of the present invention, of these and other GUI
components. Thus, although specific reference is made to menus,
other components may also be made and used according to the
invention.
EX1005 (Madden), at 19:617; EX1002 (Romn Declaration), at 131. This is
consistent with Mr. Romns view of the skill of a POSA, who would easily be
able to create a new GUI layout using a finite set of well-known GUI elements.
EX1002 (Romn Declaration), at 131. According to Mr. Romn, a GUI
programmer will generally make design choices from a number of different ways
to layout and display a limited number of GUI widgets. Id. Third, Madden points
to combining with Ruff by Maddens Figure 6 menu items, Configuration and
Prepare for a New OS,
37
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
which are exact functions of the Ruff GUI as a POSA would understand it. Id. at
133.
While Ruff generally teaches a run-time graphical user interface and Madden
is generally directed to a boot-time graphical user interface, this difference does
not teach away from the combination of Ruff and Madden. Id. at 132. Madden
explicitly teaches that its GUI may also be used in regular applications that
limited-graphics-support environment such as a portable device or an embedded
system. EX1004 (Madden) at 5:1021. Moreover, as discussed just above, the
underlying structure and functionality of the computer and storage devices in Ruff
and Madden are the same (as they relate to the operating systems), regardless of
whether the computer device is in a booting or a running state. EX1002 (Romn
Declaration), at 130. Maddens explicit teachings alone would motivate a POSA
to combine the references, to further develop the usefulness of the GUI and the
underlying partition management system of Ruff. Id. at 132.
Finally, as alluded to above, Ruff and Madden are in the same field of
endeavor. They share an inventor (Robert S. Raymond) and were assigned to the
same entity (PowerQuest Corporation). They also solve the same problems
38
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
inherent in manipulating partitions of file systems. This is especially true given the
overlap in Maddens Figure 6 menu items (Configuration and Prepare for a
New OS) and Ruffs functionality as discussed above. Id. at 133. Accordingly,
a POSA would be further motivated to combine Ruff and Madden to arrive at the
claimed GUI of the 400 Patent. See Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d
995, 100102 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
D. Claim 1 is Obvious over Ruff in View of Madden
1. Preamble
To the extent the preamble is deemed limiting, Ruff in view of Madden
render the preamble obvious.
a. A graphic user interface for displaying means for

allocating a computer devices resources to multiple
operating system environments,
To the extent the Board finds the preamble limiting, see VI.A.1, supra,
Ruff and Madden teach this portion of the preamble.
Ruff teaches a GUI that displays at least a portion of the partition table
contents to the user and provide[s] users with feedback regarding the current
partition configuration and a command interface for molding that configuration.
EX1003 (Ruff) at 9:4247. The GUI of Ruff displays information regarding the
partitions presently defined by the partition table of the computer device at issue,
including the names, relative positions, and file system types of the partitions.
39
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Id. at 9:5861. The GUI of Ruff also displays a drive group box 118 which
provides the user with information regarding the physical disk drives attached to
the computer, including the drive names. Id. at 9:5154. A user can manipulate
these resources through the use of the Ruff GUI. Id. at 10:1526. Thus, Ruff
teaches a graphic user interface for displaying means for allocating a computer
devices resources to multiple operating system environments, as recited in Claim
1.
Madden teaches the management of multiple operating systems on a single
computer. EX1004 (Madden), at Abstract. To do that with a single computer,
and to share the computers resources, Madden breaks out the [multiple]
operating systems 100 into separate directories so that they can be booted
individually. Id. at 8:4650. With this and other functionality provided by
Madden, a user can install multiple copies of the same operating system and/or
multiple different operating systems in the same partition. Id. at 10:2630.
Madden provides a boot-time graphical user interface for management of these
resources. Id. at Abstract. Thus, Madden also teaches a graphic user interface for
displaying means for allocating a computer devices resources to multiple
operating system environments, as recited in Claim 1.
40
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
b. partitioned on individual virtual cabinets, on said
computer device
To the extent the preamble is deemed limiting, Ruff teaches this portion of
the preamble. The recited virtual cabinets are construed to mean a virtual storage
device, capable of containing, typically through the use of virtual table of content
pointers, all (or partitions of) shared (or non-shared) operating systems, application
software (both OS dependent and No-OS embedded), databases and memory.
The partitions taught by Ruff, such as those shown and indicated by their drive
letter number in Figure 6, e.g., C:, are virtual cabinets within this scope of this
construction.
Ruff Figure 6 400 Patent Figure 1
First, these Ruff partitions are virtual storage devices that are capable of
containing all or portions of operating systems, application software, databases and
memorythe Ruff partitions can be located on one or more disks attached to one
or more disk drives, can possess a specified file system type (e.g., FAT), and can
41
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
be an extended partition or a logical partition. Id. at Abstract, 3:435, 5:55
59, 8:517. Second, the Ruff partitions can also contain all necessary user and
system data which includes without limitation the contents of files created by the
user such as textual documents and spreadsheets, the contents of files required to
run applications such as word processors, and system data such as directory
information. Id. at 4:2644. A POSA would understand this disclosure in Ruff to
implicitly include application software, databases, and memory. EX1002 (Romn
Declaration), at 121. Further, the Ruff partitions may also contain operating
systems, such as the OS/2 operating system, depending on the size and location
of the partition in the secondary storage drives. See id. at 13:1114, 13:3744.
Thus, Ruff teaches a system which is partitioned on individual virtual cabinets, on
said computer device, as recited in Claim 1.
2. said graphic user interface comprising: a main menu bar
The GUI of Ruff includes a main menu bar as shown in, e.g., Figure 6, the
vertical Help & Exit Menu Bar, showing the menu buttons HELP and EXIT:
42
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
As shown, Ruff, like the 400 patent, teaches, a HELP button, and explicitly
teaches an EXIT button, much like the 400 patents File button, another top-
level command. Under the BRI, a POSA would consider the vertical menu of Ruff
to disclose a main menu bar, at least because it contains the same or similar top-
level menu options (e.g., help and exit) typically found under file headers,
operates for the same purpose, and contains top-level or application-wide
functionality for the software, such as exiting and seeking help for the entire
application. EX1002 (Romn Declaration) at 7677, 119.
To the extent Patent Owner argues that the vertical Help & Exit Menu Bar
does not meet the recited main menu bar, it would have been an obvious
modification to the vertical Help & Exit Menu Bar to include additional menu
options in an elongate main menu bar. Id. With the finite number of design
choices available to a GUI designer as discussed above in III.B and the well-
43
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
known relationship between menu items and buttons, including as demonstrated in
Madden and reiterated below, this obvious design choice would have been well
within the ability of a POSA at the time of the 400 Patent invention. Id. at 59
60; see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (If a person
of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, 103 likely bars its
patentability.).
Further, as noted above, prior art references like Madden specifically teach
tabs, pull-down menus, and other design choices such as style, size, and type of
menu are generally equivalent to one of ordinary skill in the art:

equivalence [. . .] of these and other GUI components.
EX1004 (Madden) at 19:617.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify or configure a main menu bar in various locations and configurations, for
obvious aesthetic and functional GUI design choices. EX1002 (Romn
Declaration) at 7677, 119. Ruff teaches, or at least renders obvious alone or in
light of Madden, a graphic user interface comprising: a main menu bar, as recited
in Claim 1.
44
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
3. a cabinet selection button bar
The GUI of Ruff discloses the recited cabinet selection button bar, wherein
the term cabinet selection button bar is construed to mean a collection of user-
selectable graphical items, each graphical item representing a virtual cabinet. In
Ruff, the partition graph 120 as shown in Figure 6 contains a graphically
illustrated collection of user-selectable partitions. In turn, each of these Ruff
partitions represents a virtual cabinet, as discussed supra in VI.D.2.
Partition graph 120 of Ruff provides information regarding the partitions
presently defined by the partition table, including the names, relative positions, and
file system types of the partitions. Id. at 9:5861. Finally, the partitions in
partition graph 120 of Ruff are user-selectable. For example, in Figure 6,
Partition C: is the current selected partition and thus information about that
selected partition is indicated in partition list 130 preferably by highlight[ing] or
45
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
otherwise alter[ing the details] in appearance. Id. at 10:814. A user can interact
with the GUI including selecting the partitions in partition graph 120 by, for
example, a mouse, a keyboard, or other familiar input devices as are familiar to
those of skill in the art. Id. at 10:2633. The selectability of the partitions in the
partition graph 120 is confirmed by the fact that a user of the Ruff GUI can also
manipulate the selected partition by moving the edges of the displayed and
selected partition in partition graph 120.
right edge
left edge
Id. at Fig. 6; id. at 13:54-64. A POSA reading Ruff would conclude that the virtual
cabinets displayed in partition graph 120 are user-selectable graphical items.
EX1002 (Romn Declaration) at 118. Thus, Ruff teaches the cabinet selection
button bar, as recited in Claim 1.
4. said cabinet selection button bar graphically representing at

least one virtual cabinet
Ruff teaches this limitation by disclosing the partition graph 120 of Figure
6 and accompanying explanation. First, as discussed above in VII.D.2, supra,
Ruff partitions are virtual cabinets as claimed in the 400 Patent. Second, Ruffs
partition graph 120, as seen in Figure 6, represents the virtual cabinets by
46
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
illustrating them as boxes with names and provid[ing] information regarding the
partitions presently defined by the partition table. Id. at 9:5861.
Id. at Fig. 6. Ruff also teaches that other [c]olors or graphical patterns may be
used in the partition graph 120 to denote the partitions, as well as a legend 126
that matches colors to file system types or to partition characteristics. Id. at
9:6610:4. Thus, Ruff teaches a cabinet selection button bar graphically
representing at least one virtual cabinet, as recited in Claim 1.
5. each said at least one virtual cabinet representing a discrete

operating system
The combination of Ruff and Madden teaches each said at least one virtual
cabinet representing a discrete operating system. As discussed above, Ruff teaches
representing virtual cabinets in a GUI by the partition graph 120 of Figure 6 and
accompanying explanation.
Id. at Fig. 6. Ruff also teaches that other [c]olors or graphical patterns may be
used in partition graph 120 to denote the partitions, as well as a legend 126 that
matches colors to file system types or to partition characteristics. Id. at 9:66
10:4.
47
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Madden expands on the teachings of Ruff by teaching a GUI with separate
menu items, or directories, that each represent a discrete operating system. See
EX1004 (Madden), at 8:4750. The GUI of Madden shows these directories as
items on the menu 604 in Figure 6, indicated by the operating system that they
represent.
See id. at 8:5059, Fig. 6. The applicable operating systems shown are Windows
NT 4.0, Windows 95 and IBM-DOS, each of which is a discrete operating
system, as claimed.
A POSA would have been motivated to combine the GUI of Ruff with the
representation of discrete operating systems of Madden for many reasons, such as
48
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
(1) maintaining and managing multiple operating systems on a single computer
more easily, more quickly, and more clearly with less error; (2) assisting in
maintaining separate operating systems and program files from user files; and (3)
helping to easily and quickly isolate or protect files related to distinct operating
systems in the case of corrupted file or operating systems. EX1002 (Romn
Declaration) at 129-30. And one of skill in the art would have been able to do
so, given that Ruff and Madden have the same underlying structure and
functionality as it relates to operating systems. Id. at 130.
To wit, Ruff teaches manipulating partitions via a GUI. See, e.g., VII.A,
supra; EX1002 (Romn Declaration) at 125. While Ruff prepares partitions for a
particular type of file system (e.g., FAT or HPFS), Madden expands on partitions
as they relate to operating systems and booting, providing a GUI for configuring
and preparing different boot partitions. Id. at 12728. Therefore, Madden,
which was filed more than three years after Ruff, represents a natural development
of the teachings of Ruff to allow not only for partition and virtual cabinet selection,
but also for discrete operating system selection through a GUI menu. Id. at 128.
As discussed in more detail in VII.C, supra, a POSA would have been motivated
to combine Ruff and Madden and would have arrived at the claimed GUI,
particularly this limitation. Thus, Madden in combination with Ruff teaches at
49
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
least one virtual cabinet representing a discrete operating system, as recited in
Claim 1.
6. a secondary storage partitions window
The GUI of Ruff includes a secondary storage partitions window, wherein
the term secondary storage partitions window is construed to mean a window that
depicts secondary storage devices and that is configurable to depict their
partitions. Figure 6, shown below, depicts the drive group box 118 and
partition graph 120. These two elements depict secondary storage devices (i.e.,
drive group box 118 representing secondary physical drives) and their partitions
(i.e., in partition graph 120).
50
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
EX1003 (Ruff), at Fig. 6. Drive group box 118 provides the user with
information regarding physical disk drives attached to the computer, including the
drive names. Id. at 9:5154. Partition graph 120 provides information
regarding the partitions presently defined by the partition table, including the
names, relative positions, and file system types of the partitions. Id. at 9:5861.
This partition graph 120 is configurable to depict the partitions via the
selection of the drive or drives for which partition information is presently being
displayed. Id. at 9:5356. Therefore, Ruff teaches a secondary storage partitions
window, as recited in Claim 1.
7. a cabinet visible partition window
The GUI of Ruff includes a cabinet visible partition window, where cabinet
visible partition window is construed to mean a window that depicts one or more
virtual cabinets and that is configurable to depict their files and partitions. First,
Ruff partitions are virtual cabinets as claimed by the 400 Patent. See VII.D.2,
supra. Second, in Figure 6 below, the GUI element which contains partition list
130 depicts the details of a Ruff partition (i.e., of a virtual cabinet).
51
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Partition list 130 provides additional information about the partitions via
details 132 regarding the currently selected partition (which in Figure 6 is
Partition C:), where the selected partition is preferably highlighted or otherwise
altered in appearance. Id. at 10:1114. As shown in Figure 6, partition list 130
incorporates details 132 including the files in Partition C:. Thus, Ruff teaches a
cabinet visible partition window, as recited in Claim 1.
8. said secondary storage partitions window graphically

illustrating at least one partition of at least one secondary
storage device
The GUI of Ruff includes the secondary storage partitions window
graphically illustrating at least one partition of at least one secondary storage
device. In Ruff, the partition graph 120, depicted in Figure 6 below, meets this
limitation.
52
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Id. at Fig. 6. Specifically, the partition graph 120 provides information regarding
the partitions presently defined by the partition table, including the names, relative
positions, and file system types of the partitions. Id. at 9:5861. These Ruff
partitions are contained within the drive or drives currently selected, from drive
box 118. Id. at 9:5356. This partition graph imparts several different categories
of visual information: the left end 122 . . . corresponds to the disk sector at the
lowest physical address . . . while the right end 124 . . . corresponds to the disk
sector at the highest physical address. Id. at 9:6165. In addition, colors or
patterns from legend 126 are used to graphically indicate properties of a partition,
such as file system types and free space. Id. at 9:6710:2. Finally, partitions
53
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
E: and F: in the figure above are enclosed by a box 128 to indicate that they are
logical partitions; partition C: is a primary partition and hence has no enclosing
box. Id. at 10:47. Thus, Ruff teaches a secondary storage partitions window
graphically illustrating at least one partition of at least one secondary storage
device, as recited in Claim 1.
9. said cabinet visible partition window graphically illustrating

a cabinet record corresponding to a selected virtual cabinet on
said cabinet selection button bar
The GUI of Ruff includes the cabinet visible partition window graphically
illustrating a cabinet record corresponding to a selected virtual cabinet on said
cabinet selection button bar. In Ruff, partition list 130 provides additional
information about the partitions by details 132 regarding the currently selected
partition (which in Figure 6 is Partition C:), where the selected partition is
preferably highlighted or otherwise altered in appearance. Id. at 10:1114. As
shown in Figure 6, partition list 130 illustrates the contents of Partition C:,
which is the selected partition in that Figure:
54
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Id. at Fig. 6. Thus, Ruff teaches a cabinet visible partition window graphically
illustrating a cabinet record corresponding to a selected virtual cabinet on said
cabinet selection button bar, as recited in Claim 1.
10. each said at least one cabinet visible partition window

representing an operating system plus application software,
databases and memory configured with said selected virtual
cabinet
The GUI of Ruff includes the recited each said at least one cabinet visible
partition window representing an operating system plus application software,
databases and memory configured with said selected virtual cabinet. The Ruff
partitions such as those shown and indicated by their drive letter number in Figure
55
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
6, e.g., C: can contain all necessary user and system data, which includes
without limitation the contents of files created by the user such as textual
documents and spreadsheets, the contents of files required to run applications such
as word processors, and system data such as directory information. Id. at 4:26
44. A POSA would read this teaching in Ruff and understand that it implicitly
includes application software, databases and memory. EX1002 (Romn
Declaration), at 121. The Ruff partitions may also contain operating systems,
such as the OS/2 operating system, depending on the size and location of the
partition in the secondary storage drives. See id. at 13:1114, 13:3744.
Likewise, partition list 130 provides additional information about the
partitions by details 132 regarding the currently selected partition (which in
Figure 6 is Partition C:). Id. at 10:1114. These details include the contents of
the Ruff partition, such as the contents of Partition C:. Id. at Figure 6.
Further, as noted above, prior art references like Madden teach organizing
multiple operating systems in partitions and including the [n]ecessary parts of the
selected operating system as well as [a]ccessory files associated with the
operating system to allow the selected operating system to function properly.
EX1004 (Madden), at 4:415; see also id. at 3:4045, 5:5461. When one of those
operating systems is selected for booting, Madden copies the operating system
code and other files needed to run the selected operating system to a directory
56
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
from which the operating system boots. Id. at 8:4759. Thus, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify or configure Ruff and its
partitions with such an operating system/application software/database/memory
configuration as is taught in Madden. EX1002 (Romn Declaration) at 130.
Therefore, because the partitions of Ruff are virtual cabinets (per VII.D.2,
supra), and can contain operating systems, application software, databases, and
memory configured in the Ruff partitions, and because partitions list 130 illustrates
the contents of a selected Ruff partition, partitions list 130 can therefore represent
an operating system plus application software, databases and memory configured
with said selected virtual cabinet. Thus, Ruff teaches, or at least renders obvious in
light of Madden, at least one cabinet visible partition window representing an
operating system plus application software, databases and memory configured
with said selected virtual cabinet, as recited in Claim 1.
E. Claim 2 is Obvious over Ruff in View of Madden
1. means for manipulating said selected virtual cabinet record

through said cabinet visible partition window
Claim 2 depends from Claim 1. Ruff also teaches the additional limitation
recited in Claim 2. First, Figure 6 of Ruff provides an options box 134 separate
from the partition list 130, discussed in VI.D.8, supra. Second, as discussed in
VI.D.1, Ruff partitions are virtual cabinets as defined by the 400 Patent. Third,
the options box 134 contains a number of options for manipulating said selected
57
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
virtual cabinet record. EX1003 (Ruff) at 10:1526 (describing the various
operations of options box 134).
Fourth, a POSA in GUI design and programming would only have had a
finite set of choices of design elements, as explained by Mr. Romn. EX1002
(Romn Declaration) at 5960. Therefore, it would have been an obvious
modification to move the options widget to make it coextensive with the cabinet
visible partition window. Thus, Ruff teaches a means for manipulating said
selected virtual cabinet record through said cabinet visible partition window, as
recited in Claim 2.
F. Claim 3 is Obvious over Ruff in View of Madden
Claim 3 depends from Claim 2. As set forth below, Ruff also teaches the
additional limitations in Claim 3.
58
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
1. a main toolbar
The GUI of Ruff includes a main toolbar by the option box 134 or, as
shown in Figure 6, the menu options of CHECK, INFO, MOVE, RESIZE,
and CONVERT (highlighted in purple):
These options buttons in the option box 134 allow for a number of different
functions that relate to the partitions that a user can manipulate with the Ruff GUI:
checking or verifying the integrity and internal consistency of a

partitions file system structures; displaying information about a
partition such as its location, size, and associated file-system-specific
details; moving a partition to a different location on a disk that
presently holds the partition or to another disk; resizing a partition to
include either a lesser or greater number of disk sectors within the
partition; and converting a partition from one file system to another
file system.
Id. at 10:1526. Therefore, Ruff teaches a main toolbar, as recited in Claim 3.
59
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
2. a cabinet properties window
The GUI of Ruff includes a cabinet properties window by the legend 126 as
shown in Figure 6 below (highlighted in dark blue).
Id. at Fig. 6. As discussed above in VI.A and VI.D.4, this legend 126 indicates
properties and characteristics of the virtual cabinets by the corresponding color or
pattern indicated on the Ruff partitions (which are virtual cabinets as defined by the
400 Patent) listed in partition graph 120. Id. at 9:6610:4. Therefore, Ruff
teaches a cabinet properties window, as recited in Claim 3.
60
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
G. Claim 4 is Obvious over Ruff in View of Madden
1. means for designating and illustrating one of said at least

one cabinet record as an active selected virtual cabinet
Claim 4 depends from Claim 3. As set forth below, Ruff also teaches the
additional limitation in Claim 4.
The GUI of Ruff teaches a mechanism wherein the active selected virtual
cabinet is delineated by a visual indication separate and distinct from the other
virtual cabinets. First, as discussed above in VII.D.1, supra, a Ruff partition is a
virtual cabinet as contemplated by the 400 Patent. Second, the GUI of Ruff
allows a user to click on a partition to make that partition the selected partition.
See id. at 10:814. A selected partition has its details in the partition list 130
highlighted or otherwise altered in appearance to note that the partition is the
selected partition. Id. For example, in Figure 6 of Ruff, partition C: is the
current selected partition. Id. at 10:814, Fig. 6. Thus, Ruff teaches a means for
designating and illustrating one of said at least one cabinet record as an active
selected virtual cabinet, as recited in Claim 4.
H. Claim 6 is Obvious over Ruff in View of Madden
1. a timer window for graphically illustrating a countdown

from a modifiable pre-specified number to 0
Claim 6 depends from Claim 4. As set forth below, Ruff in combination
with Madden also teaches the additional limitations in Claim 6.
61
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Madden teaches a timer 602 that will count down the number of seconds
after which the operating system 100 will boot when the timer 602 times out.
EX1004 (Madden), at 8:2633, 18:2331. Although Madden does not explicitly
teach the modification of the timer, Madden does describe a boot.ini file, which
contains the timeout parameter. Id. at 18:1222. Entries in the boot.ini file
may be added, removed, reordered, or modified using switches and other command
line parameters. Id. at 18:3234. Further, the boot.ini file is a feature of the art
which a POSA would be very familiar with and recognize can be modified.
EX1002 (Romn Declaration) at 94. Therefore, because Madden teaches a timer,
with its duration set by a boot.ini file, which a POSA would recognize is
modifiable, Madden teaches this limitation.
Madden provides an explicit motivation to extend the teachings of the
simpler boot-time GUI of Madden to include more complex GUI elements such as
those taught in Ruff via bitmaps 130:

equivalence, with respect to the boot-time graphical user interface
aspects 130, 132 of the present invention, of these and other GUI
components. Thus, although specific reference is made to menus,
62
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
other components may also be made and used according to the
invention.
EX1004 (Madden) at 19:617. These bitmaps 130 discussed by Madden are the
same mechanism through which the timer is implemented. Id. at 8:2633.
Utilizing different images to make different GUI permutations is consistent
with Mr. Romns view of the skill of a POSA, who would easily be able to create
a new GUI layout using a finite set of well-known GUI elements. EX1002
(Romn Declaration), at 5360. According to Mr. Romn, a GUI programmer
will generally make design choices from several different ways to layout and
display a limited number of GUI widgets. Id. at 5960. Therefore, for Ruff and
Madden, the run-time/boot-time distinction is no barrier to a POSA looking to
combine the references.
Thus, Ruff in view of Madden teaches a timer window for graphically
illustrating a countdown from a modifiable pre-specified number to 0, as recited
in Claim 6.
63
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
I. Claim 10 is Obvious over Ruff in View of Madden
1. means for remote management of any of said multiple

operating systems
with Madden also teaches the additional limitation in Claim 10.
Madden teaches that its boot management system and GUI may be used in
network communications, network administration, security, operating system and
other software development, remote site management, diagnostic, storage device
management, or anti-viral programs. EX1004 (Madden) at 5:1021 (emphasis
added). Thus, the subdirectory containing an operating systems boot code and
files need not be on the computer 102 being booted, but may instead be accessible
through a low-level network connection. Id. at 17:2629. In this way, Madden
teaches remote management of booting the multiple operating systems managed by
Madden. Therefore, Ruff in view of Madden teaches a means for remote
management of any of said multiple operating systems, as recited in Claim 10.
A POSA would be motivated to combine Ruff and Madden for at least the
reasons stated in VII.C, VII.D.6, and VII.H, supra.
64
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
J. Claim 15 Is Obvious over Ruff in View of Madden
1. wherein said multiple operating system is a super operating

system
with Madden also teaches the additional limitation in Claim 15.
Madden teaches a super operating system, where super operating system is
construed to mean an operating system that allows a computer user to load
multiple operating systems from secondary storage into main memory.
Specifically, the file management system underlying Madden includes organizing
operating systems and allowing users to select which operating systems to boot.
The multiple operating systems are stored simultaneously on one or more hard
disks or permanent storage devices. Id. at 3:3942. Because there are more
operating systems than the computer can boot and run at one time, a user must
select between operating systems at boot-time. Id. at 3:4547. Thus, the file
management system of Madden acts as a super operating system as defined by the
400 Patent. Therefore, Ruff in combination with Madden a multiple operating
system wherein said multiple operating system is a super operating system as
recited in Claim 15.
A POSA would be motivated to combine Ruff and Madden for at least the
reasons stated in VII.C, VII.D.6, and VII.H, supra.
65
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
VIII. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Claims 14, 6, 10, and 15 of the 400 Patent recite
subject matter that is unpatentable. Petitioner respectfully requests institution of
inter partes review to cancel these claims.
Respectfully submitted,
/Vincent J. Galluzzo/
Vincent J. Galluzzo
Registration No. 67,830
Teresa Stanek Rea

Jonathan Stroud
Ashraf A. Fawzy
66
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Table of Exhibits for Patent 6,690,400 Petition for Inter Partes Review
Exhibit Description
1001 U.S. Patent 6,690,400 (the 400 Patent)
1002 Declaration of Kendyl Romn (Romn Declaration)
1003 U.S. Patent 5,675,769 to Ruff et al. (Ruff) (filed on February 23, 1995;
published on October 7, 1997)
1004 U.S. Patent 6,178,503 to Madden et al. (Madden) (filed on September

11, 1998; published on January 23, 2001)
1005 Petitioners Voluntary Interrogatory Responses
1006 Plaintiffs Original Complaint for Patent Infringement in Global Equity

Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Ericsson, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00618 (E.D.
Tex. June 14, 2016) (Ericsson Complaint)
1007 Institution Decision in eBay Inc. et al. v. Global Equity Management

(SA) Pty. Ltd., IPR2016-01828 (1828 IPR Institution Decision)
1008 Valerie Quercia and Tim OReilly, X Window System User's Guide,
Volume 3, Motif Edition (1993) (X Window Users Guide)
1009 Ben Schneiderman, 1998, Designing the User Interface: Strategies for
Effective Human-Computer Interaction, 3rd ed. (Schneiderman)
1010 Sun Microsystems, Inc., OPEN LOOK Graphical User Interface

Functional Specification (1989) (OPEN LOOK)
1011 U.S. Patent 6,401,183 to Rafizadeh (183 Patent) (filed on April 1,

1999; published on June 4, 2002)
1012 Apple Computer, Inc., Inside Macintosh: Files (1992) (Inside

Macintosh 1992)
1013 Hewlett-Packard Company, SoftPC User Guide (1988) (SoftPC User

Guide)
a
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
Exhibit Description
1014 Alan Cooper, About Face: The Essentials of User Interface Design
(1995) (Cooper)
1015 U.S. Patent No. 7,356,677 to Rafizadeh (677 Patent) (filed on

October 18, 2001; published on April 8, 2008)
1016 File Wrapper for U.S. Patent No. 6,690,400 (400 Patent File History)
1017 Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order in Global Equity

Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Expedia, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-00095
(E.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2016) (Claim Construction Order)
1018 Patent Owner Preliminary Response eBay Inc. et al. v. Global Equity
Management (SA) Pty. Ltd., IPR2016-01828 (1828 IPR POPR)
1019 MacWorld Magazine (March 1989) (MacWorld)
1020 SoftPC with Windows Installation and User Guide (1993) (SoftPC with
Windows User Guide)
1021 Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Windows NT System Guide (Beta

March 1993) (Windows NT System Guide)
1022 BackFAX Manual (October 1989) (BackFAX)
1023 Apple Computer, Inc., Inside Macintosh (Volume V) (Inside Macintosh

Vol. V)
1024 Symantec Corp., The Norton Utilities for Macintosh: Users Guide &
Reference (1992) (Norton Utilities)
1025 Connectix Corp., Connectix Virtual PC: Addendum for Version 2.0 for
Power Macintosh (February 1998) (Connectix Virtual PC)
b
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.24(d), I hereby certify that this Petition complies
with the type-volume limitation of 37 C.F.R. 42.24(a)(1)(i) because it contains
11,220 words as determined by the Microsoft Office Word 2010 word-processing
system used to prepare the brief, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by 37
C.F.R. 42.24(a)(1).
Vincent J. Galluzzo
U.S. Patent 6,690,400
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 30, 2017, I caused a true and correct copy of the
following materials:
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 6,690,400 Challenging
Claims 14, 6, 10, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 312 and 37 C.F.R.
42.104
Exhibits to Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 6,690,400
(EX1001EX1025)
to be sent via FedEx Overnight Mail on the following correspondent of record as
listed on PAIR:
William Ramey III (Reg. No. 44,295)

Melissa Schwaller (Reg. No. 46,089)
Ramey & Schwaller, LLP
5020 Montrose Blvd.
Suite 750
Houston, TX 77006
Vincent J. Galluzzo

Unified Patents Inc. v. Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. LTD., IPR2017-01467 (PTAB May 30, 2017)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Unified Patents Inc. v. Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. LTD., IPR2017-01467 (PTAB May 30, 2017)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

IPR2017-01467 Petition

U.S. Patent 6,690,400

Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNIFIED PATENTS INC.

GLOBAL EQUITY MANAGEMENT (SA) PTY. LTD.

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF

I. MANDATORY NOTICES .............................................................................1

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1), Unified Patents Inc. (Unified or

EX1005 (Petitioners Voluntary Interrogatory Responses).

U.S. Patent 6,690,400 (400 Patent (EX1001)) is owned by Global Equity

Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. (GEMSA or Patent Owner). See EX1006

The 400 Patent is involved in another Inter Partes Review proceeding,

Texas and elsewhere alleging infringement of the 400 Patent, as summarized in

the following chart.

Case Caption Date Filed

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. AirBNB, Inc., No.

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Alibaba.com, Inc.

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Priceline Group,

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Priceline Group,

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Priceline Group,

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Expedia.com et

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Hotels.com, L.P.

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v.

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. eBay, Inc., No.

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Travelocity USA

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Travago GmbH et

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Orbitz

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Hotwire, Inc. et

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. TripAdvisor, Inc.,

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Hipmunk, Inc.,

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Ericsson, Inc.,

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Johnson &

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Philips, Inc., No.

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. SAP America,

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Siemens

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. The Nasdaq OMX

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Ticketleap.com,

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Live Nation

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Ubisoft Studio,

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. General Electric

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. McGraw Hill

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Zynga, Inc., No.

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Alcatel-Lucent,

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Uber

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Artek Surfin

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Netflix, Inc., No.

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. AdRoll, Inc., No.

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Spotify USA, Inc.,

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Hitachi America,

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Zillow, Inc. et al.,

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Alibaba Group

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Ericsson, Inc.,

declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of the 400 Patent in

3:16-cv-00619 (E.D. Va.).

Fawzy (Reg. No. 67,914) will act as back-up counsel.

D. Service Information, Email, Hand Delivery, and Postal

Unified consents to electronic service at vgalluzzo@crowell.com,

jonathan@unifiedpatents.com, and afawzy@unifiedpatents.com. Petitioner can be

reached at Crowell & Moring LLP, 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Tel.: (650) 999-0899.