EXHIBIT 24

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 114-24 Filed 12/19/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:

9198
UNITED STATES PA TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 

90/019,676 09/23/2024 

27975 7590 10/24/2024 

ADD+G - 27975 

1135 East State Road 434, Suite 3001 

Winter Springs, FL 32708 

FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 

7784058 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

United States Patent and Trademark Office 

Address: COMMISSIONERFORPATENTS 

P.O. Box 1450 

Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 

www.uspto.gov 

ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. 

VIR058 

CONFIRMATION NO. 

7612 

EXAMINER 

WOOD, WILLIAM H 

ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 

3992 

MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 

10/24/2024 PAPER 

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. 

The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. 

PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 114-24 Filed 12/19/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:

9199
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER 

(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS) 

Unified Patents, LLC 

4445 Willard Ave. 

Suite 600 

Chevy Chase, MD 20815 

Commissioner for Patents 

United States Patent and Trademark Office 

P.O. Box 1450 

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 

www.uspto.gov 

EX PARTEREEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM 

REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/019,676. 

PATENT UNDER REEXAMINATION 7784058. 

ART UNIT 3992. 

Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)). 

Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a 

reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be 

acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)). 

PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04) 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 114-24 Filed 12/19/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:

9200
Order Granting Request For 

Ex Parle Reexamination 

Control No. 

90/019,676 

Examiner 

WILLIAM H WOOD 

Patent Under Reexamination 

7784058 

Art Unit AIA (FITF) Status 

3992 No 

--The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address--

The request for ex parte reexamination filed 09/23/2024 has been considered and a determination has 

been made. An identification of the claims, the references relied upon, and the rationale supporting the 

determination are attached. 

Attachments: a) □ PTO-892, PTO/SB/08, c)O Other: 

1. 0 The request for ex parte reexamination is GRANTED. 

RESPONSE TIMES ARE SET AS FOLLOWS: 

For Patent Owner's Statement (Optional): TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication 

(37 CFR 1.530 (b)). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c). 

For Requester's Reply (optional): TWO MONTHS from the date of service of any timely filed 

Patent Owner's Statement (37 CFR 1.535). NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME PERIOD IS PERMITTED. 

If Patent Owner does not file a timely statement under 37 CFR 1.530(b), then no reply by requester 

is permitted. 

'William H. Wood/ 

Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 

cc:Requester ( if third party requester) U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

PTOL-471G(Rev. 01-13) Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination Part of Paper No. 20241018 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 114-24 Filed 12/19/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:

9201
Application/Control Number: 90/019,676 

Art Unit: 3992 

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REEXAMINATION 

Page 2 

Reexamination (ex parte) has been requested by a third party (Unified Patents, LLC) for claims 1 

and 12 of US 7,784,058 to Rochette et al., which issued on 08/24/2010 (hereinafter, the '058 patent). 

The Request for ex parte reexamination (herein Request) was received on 09/23/2024. 

A substantial new question of patentability affecting claims 1 and 12 of United States Patent Number 

7,784,058 to Rochette et al. is raised by the request for ex pa rte reexamination. As such the filed request 

for reexamination is granted. 

Notice of Pre-A/A or AJA Status 

The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 

Reexamination 

Extensions of time under 37 CFR l.136(a) will not be permitted in these proceedings because 

the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an applicant" and not to parties in a reexamination 

proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 305 requires that ex parte reexamination proceedings "will be 

conducted with special dispatch" (37 CFR l.550(a)). Extensions of time in ex parte reexamination 

proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR l.550(c). 

The patent owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR l.565(a) to apprise 

the Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent proceeding, involving Patent No. 

7,784,058 throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. The third party requester is also 

reminded of the ability to similarly apprise the Office of any such activity or proceeding throughout the 

course of this reexamination proceeding. See MPEP §§ 2207, 2282 and 2286. 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 114-24 Filed 12/19/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:

9202
Application/Control Number: 90/019,676 

Art Unit: 3992 

Information Disclosure Statement 

Page 3 

The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/24/2024 are considered by the 

examiner in accordance with 37 CFR 1.98, 37 CFR 1.555, and M PEP 2257, to the fullest extent of the 

items presented including any concise explanation. Documents not meeting particular criteria are lined 

through and not considered. 

Prosecution History Summary 

The patent requested for reexamination, US 7,784,058 to Rochette et al., issued from U.S. 

Application 10/946,536 with a filing date on 09/21/2004, which claims priority to provisional application 

60/504,213 (filed 09/22/2003). The following is a summary of the relevant portions of the corresponding 

prosecution history. 

Issued claims 1 and 12 are requested for reexamination, which correspond to prosecution claims 

1 and 13. The Non-Final Rejection of 11/18/2008 rejected claims 1-20 as being anticipated under 35 USC 

102 by Cabrero (U.S. Patent 6,260,075). After the claim amendment of 02/18/2009, the Final Rejection 

of 04/02/2009 maintained the rejection of claims 1-20 as being anticipated under 35 USC 102 by 

Cabrero (U.S. Patent 6,260,075) and indicated the arguments of 02/18/2009 were not persuasive. 

After the RCE of 07/01/2009 with claim amendments, the Non-Final Rejection of 09/22/2009 

rejected claims 1-9 and 11-20 as being unpatentable over O'Rourke (US 6,212,574 Bl) in view of Peek 

(US 5,481,706) and rejected claim 10 as unpatentable over O'Rourke in view of Peek in further view of 

Desoli (US 2004/0025165 Al). 

After the claim amendment and arguments of 01/15/2010, the Notice of Allowance of 

05/03/2010 allowed prosecution claims 1-5 and 7-19. After an Examiner's Amendment moving much of 

claim 6 into independent claim 1, The Notice of Allowance stated (pages 4-5): 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 114-24 Filed 12/19/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:

9203
Application/Control Number: 90/019,676 

Art Unit: 3992 

Page 4 

None of Elnozahy et al. (hereinafter Elnozahy) (US 7,499,966 B2) and Wong et al. (hereinafter Wong) (US 

2004/0216145 Al) on the record discloses "a shared library having shared library critical system 

elements (SLCSEs) stored therein for use by the plurality of software applications in user mode and 

i) wherein some of the SLCSEs stored in the shared library are functional replicas of OSCSEs and are 

accessible to some of the plurality of software applications and when one of the SLCSEs is accessed by 

one or more of the plurality of software applications it forms a part of the one or more of the plurality of 

software applications, and 

ii) wherein an instance of a SLCSE provided to at least a first of the plurality of software applications 

from the shared library is run in a context of said at least first of the plurality of software applications 

without being shared with other of the plurality of software applications and where at least a second of 

the plurality of software applications running under the operating system have use of a unique instance 

of a corresponding critical system element for performing same function. 

iii) wherein a SLCSE related to a predetermined function is provided to the first of the plurality of 

software applications for running a first instance of the SLCSE, and wherein a SLCSE for performing a 

same function is provided to the second of the plurality of software applications for running a second 

instance of the SLCSE simultaneously" (Claim 1). 

Therefore, at least these above limitations would be considered important to a reasonable 

examiner, as well as: "wherein a SLCSE related to a predetermined function is provided to the first of the 

plurality of software applications for running a first instance of the SLCSE, and wherein a SLCSE for 

performing a same function is provided to the second of the plurality of software applications for 

running a second instance of the SLCSE simultaneously". 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 114-24 Filed 12/19/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:

9204
Application/Control Number: 90/019,676 

Art Unit: 3992 

Page 5 

After the prosecution of US Application 10/946,536 which resulted in reexamination requested 

patent US 7,784,058 to Rochette et al., the patent was involved in current litigation: (1) 5:24cv4740, Red 

Hat, Inc. v. Virtamove, Corp.; (2) 2:24cv93, Virtamove, Corp. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company; (3) 

7:24cv33, Virtamove, Corp. v. Google LLC; (4) 7:24cv30, Virtamove, Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.; (5) 

2:24cv64, Virtamove, Corp. v. International Business Machines, Corp. 

References of the Request 

The Request proposes the following patents and/or printed publications provide teachings 

relevant to the requested claims of the '058 patent. 

Lucas 

Lucas, printed publication by M. Lucas titled "Absolute BSD: the Ultimate Guide to FreeBSD" 

(herein Lucas) published by No Starch Press in 2002, was not cited during the original prosecution of 

application 10/946,536 which resulted in the reexamination requested patent. The Lucas reference is 

eligible for application under at least 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as the Lucas reference was published, on its face, 

in 2002 as compared to the earliest possible priority date of the '058 patent to 09/22/2003. Further 

evidence suggests the reference is eligible for application under at least 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as it was 

available over a year before the earliest possible priority date of the '058 patent (see Request pages 5-

7). As discussed in the following section on SNQs, the Request asserts Lucas establishes a substantial 

new question of patentability. 

Blott 

Blott, printed publication by S. Blott et al. titled "NetTap: an efficient and reliable PC-based 

platform for network programming" (herein Blott) published by IEEE Third Conference on Open 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 114-24 Filed 12/19/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:

9205
Application/Control Number: 90/019,676 

Art Unit: 3992 

Page 6 

Architectures and Network Programming in March 2002, was not cited during the original prosecution 

of application 10/946,536 which resulted in the reexamination requested patent. The Blott reference is 

eligible for application under at least 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as the Blott reference was published, on its face, in 

March 2002 as compared to the earliest possible priority date of the '058 patent to 09/22/2003 (see also 

Request pages 7-8). As discussed in the following section on SNQs, the Request asserts Blott establishes 

a substantial new question of patentability. 

Kamp 

Kamp, printed publication by P.H. Kamp et al. titled "Jails: Confining the omnipotent root" 

(herein Kamp) accessible by Sane 2000 Conference in 2000, was not cited during the original 

prosecution of application 10/946,536 which resulted in the reexamination requested patent. The Kamp 

reference is eligible for application under at least 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as the Kamp reference was published 

in 2000 as compared to the earliest possible priority date of the '058 patent to 09/22/2003 (see Request 

pages 8-10). As discussed in the following section on SNQs, the Request asserts Kamp establishes a 

substantial new question of patentability. 

Substantial New Question of the Request 

The following is an analysis of the Request asserted at least one substantial new question of 

patentability, in view of the above cited prior art, with respect to issued claims 1 and 12 of US 7,784,058 

to Rochette et al. 

Issue 1 

The Request asserts Lucas in view of Blott and Kamp raise a substantial new question of 

patentability (Request: pages 10-15, Sections I.E, I.F, and I.G; Ground 1}. 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 114-24 Filed 12/19/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:

9206
Application/Control Number: 90/019,676 

Art Unit: 3992 

Page 7 

Claims 1 and 12 are proposed as being unpatentable over Lucas in view of Blott in further view 

of Kamp (Request: pages 16-31, Section II; Ground 1}. 

Lucas shows in relation to the FreeBSD operating system: an operating system with a kernel 

having critical system elements (Lucas: page 61, "The first step in optimizing FreeBSD is to configure the 

kernel"; page 62, "The kernel is the interface between the hardware and the software"; page 62, "The 

kernel provides interfaces to programs that need access to the hardware"); a shared library with critical 

system elements for use by software applications (Lucas: page 260, "The basic idea behind a shared 

library is quite straightforward: It's a chunk of compiled code that provides services and functions to 

other chunks of compiled code. Shared libraries provide popular functions for all programs to use, and 

they are designed to be reused by as many different programs as possible"; page 260, "FreeBSD builds a 

cache of available shared libraries at boottime"); and an instance run in a context without being shared 

with other applications (Lucas: page 175, "when using FreeBSD, you can build an entire virtual machine 

on disk, and isolate that machine from the rest of your system. This is called a jail."}. 

Blott shows in relation to the FreeBSD operating system: shared user-level libraries (Blott: page 

18, "e.g., by user-level libraries, for TCP/IP protocols, security {19}, or output link scheduling {8]. Such 

libraries can run on top of the Net Tap AP/. Applications may easily specialize or modify user-level 

libraries"); and libraries as functional replicas of critical kernel elements (Blott: abstract, "NetCounter, an 

application for capturing and aggregating IP network billing records, achieves greater throughput on 

NetTap at user level than does FreeBSD's IP forwarding at kernel level"; page 15 referring to section II., 

"the Net Tap AP/ does support" referring to page 14, section II, item 3, " ... user-level applications. 

Applications are easier to develop, debug, and maintain at user level than at kernel level"; page 20, 

"NetTap's user-level bridging slightly outperformed kernel-level bridging"). 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 114-24 Filed 12/19/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:

9207
Application/Control Number: 90/019,676 

Art Unit: 3992 

Page 8 

Kamp discloses in relation to the FreeBSD operating system: shared libraries of an instance not 

shared with another instance with its own shared libraries (Kamp: page 9, "the expected configuration 

creates a complete FreeBSD installation for each jail. This includes copies of all relevant system binaries, 

data files, and its own /etc directory. Such a configuration maximises the independence of various jails, 

and reduces the chances of interference between jails being possible"); and two simultaneously running 

instances (Kamp: page 2, "Processes in a jail are provided full access to the files that they may 

manipulate, processes they may influence, and network services they can make use of, and neither 

access nor visibility of files, processes or network services outside their partition"; page 6, "Processes 

within the jail will find that they are unable to interact or even verify the existence of processes outside 

the jail - processes within the jail are prevented from delivering signals to processes outside the jail, as 

well as connecting to those processes with debuggers, or even see them in the sysctl or process file 

system monitoring mechanisms. Jail does not prevent, nor is it intended to prevent, the use of covert 

channels or communications mechanisms via accepted interfaces -for example, two processes may 

communicate via sockets over the IP network interface"). 

These disclosures of Lucas, Blott, and Kamp constitute teachings pertinent to at least claim 

limitations: "a shared library having shared library critical system elements (SLCSEs) stored therein for 

use by the plurality of software applications in user mode and i) wherein some of the SLCSEs stored in 

the shared library are functional replicas of OSCSEs and are accessible to some of the plurality of 

software applications and when one of the SLCSEs is accessed by one or more of the plurality of 

software applications it forms a part of the one or more of the plurality of software applications, and ii) 

wherein an instance of a SLCSE provided to at least a first of the plurality of software applications from 

the shared library is run in a context of said at least first of the plurality of software applications without 

being shared with other of the plurality of software applications and where at least a second of the 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 114-24 Filed 12/19/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:

9208
Application/Control Number: 90/019,676 

Art Unit: 3992 

Page 9 

plurality of software applications running under the operating system have use of a unique instance of a 

corresponding critical system element for performing same function iii) wherein a SLCSE related to a 

predetermined function is provided to the first of the plurality of software applications for running a first 

instance of the SLCSE, and wherein a SLCSE for performing a same function is provided to the second of 

the plurality of software applications for running a second instance of the SLCSE simultaneously." 

As revealed in the above "Prosecution History Summary", these limitations were important to 

the allowability of US 7,784,058 to Rochette et al. (including independent claim 1, and by extension 

dependent claim 12). As now presented, these teachings were not previously considered in the 

prosecution that led to the reexamination requested patent and are viewed in a new light. Therefore, 

each of Lucas, Blott, or Kamp are not merely cumulative to prior art already considered by the Office. 

In light of these teachings, Lucas in view of Blott and Kamp is found to provide new prior art 

teachings that would be considered important to a reasonable examiner in evaluating the patentability 

of claims 1 and 12. Accordingly, Lucas in view of Blott and Kamp raises a substantial new question of 

patentability with respect to claims 1 and 12. 

35 USC 325(d) 

A review of the post grant history for the '058 patent indicates that there have been no other 

Office post grant challenges involving the patent (Reexamination Proceedings or Inter Portes Review, 

Post Grant Review, Covered Business Method trials). Accordingly, a determination of whether to 

exercise discretion to reject the request pursuant to 35 USC 325(d) is not applicable. 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 114-24 Filed 12/19/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:

9209
Application/Control Number: 90/019,676 

Art Unit: 3992 

Correspondence Information 

Page 10 

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner 

should be directed to WILLIAM H WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-3736. The examiner can 

normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm. 

Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a 

USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use 

the US PTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http:/ /www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. 

If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, 

Alexander Kosowski can be reached on (571)272-3744. The fax phone number for the organization 

where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 

Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from 

Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To 

file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https:/ /patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit 

https:/ /www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and 

https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional 

questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like 

assistance from a US PTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 

571-272-1000. 

/William H. Wood/ 

Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992 

Conferee: 

/PENG KE/ 

Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 114-24 Filed 12/19/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:

9210
Application/Control Number: 90/019,676 

Art Unit: 3992 

/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/ 

Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992 

Page 11 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 114-24 Filed 12/19/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:

9211