`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`DELL INC., HEWLETT-PACKARD
`
`COMPANY, and NETAPP, INC.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ELECTRONICS AND
`
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`
`RESEARCH INSTITUTE
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00635
`
`Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. THOMAS M. CONTE IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVEIW
`
`
`1
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by outside counsel on behalf of Intellectual Discovery
`
`Co., Ltd, in connection with inter partes review no. IPR2013-00635 of US. Patent
`
`No. 6,978,346.
`
`I understand that
`
`the patent
`
`is owned by Electronics and
`
`Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) and exclusively licensed to Safe
`
`Storage, LLC.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard hourly rate for my work on this
`
`matter, including providing this declaration. My compensation is not dependent on
`
`the outcome of this review and in no way affects the substance of my testimony in
`
`this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I have no financial
`
`interest
`
`in ETRI; Safe Storage, LLC;
`
`Intellectual
`
`Discovery Co., Ltd;
`
`the '346 Patent; or in the outcome of any proceeding
`
`involving the '346 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the following documents in the record
`
`of this case:
`
`Document
`
`'346 Patent
`
`EXhibit/
`Paper No.
`
`2001
`
`1001 Prosecution History of the '346 Patent
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review filed in this case on Sept. 27,
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`|PR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`2013 (Petition)
`Declaration of Dr. M. Ray Mercer filed with the Petition
`U.S. Patent No. 5,574,950 (Hathorn)
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response filed on Jan. 2, 2014
`Decision Instituting Inter Partes Review on Mar. 20, 2014
`Webster’s Computer Dictionary (9th ed. 2001)
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002)
`
`
`1006
`1005
`14
`19
`2004
`2005
`
`5.
`
`I understand that the '346 Patent granted from U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`09/753,245 (Exhibit 2001, pages 1-25) ('245 Application), which was filed at the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) on December 29, 2000.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that the '245 Application claimed priority to Korean Patent Appl.
`
`No. 2000-54807 (Exhibit 2001, pages 61-83) (Korean Priority Application), which
`
`was filed at the Korean Patent Office on September 19, 2000. I understand that as
`
`a result the effective filing date of the '346 Patent is September 19, 2000. I also
`
`assume that this is the invention date for the '346 Patent, although I understand that
`
`the inventors may have actually invented the invention before that date.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that the Petitioners asserts that claims 1-3 and 5-8 of the '346
`
`Patent are anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,574,950 (Hathorn) under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102 and that trial has been instituted to answer that question.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`8.
`
`I have been instructed to give the claims of the '346 Patent at issue in this
`
`review their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the '346 Patent’s
`
`specification and prosecution history. I understand that this interpretation is from
`
`the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the patent’s
`
`effective filing date.
`
`9.
`
`I understand that anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that a single
`
`prior art reference disclose, either explicitly or inherently, all of the limitations of a
`
`patent claim arranged together as stated in the claim.
`
`10. I understand that inherent disclosure of feature in a reference requires that the
`
`feature necessarily must be present and that inherency cannot be predicated on the
`
`mere possibility that the feature might be present in what the reference describes.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERTISE
`
`11. I am a (Full) Professor of Computer Science and Electrical & Computer
`
`Engineering with permanent tenure at Georgia Institute of Technology ("Georgia
`
`Tech"). I have been in this position since mid-2008. Prior to that, I was a (Full)
`
`Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering with permanent tenure at North
`
`Carolina State University ("NC State") from July 1995 to June 2008. I was an
`
`Assistant Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of
`
`South Carolina from 1992 to 1995. I received my Bachelor of Electrical
`
`
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`Engineering degree from the University of Delaware in 1986; I received my
`
`Master of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Illinois at
`
`Urbana-Champaign in 1988; and I received my Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical
`
`Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1992.
`
`12. I am a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers ("IEEE")
`
`and a member of the Association for Computing Machinery ("ACM"). I am the
`
`2014 President-elect (2015 President) and past Vice President for Publications of
`
`the IEEE Computer Society. I am the past chair of the IEEE Computer Society's
`
`Technical Committee on Microarchitecture and Microprogramming; and past
`
`Chair of the ACM Special Interest Group on Microarchitecture. I served as the
`
`Program Chair of
`
`the 1995
`
`IEEE/ACM
`
`International Symposium on
`
`Microarchitecture, the General Chair of the 2003 IEEE/ACM International
`
`Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization, the Program Chair of the 2003
`
`IEEE/ACM International Conference on Compilers, Architecture and Synthesis for
`
`Embedded Systems, the Program Chair of the 2006 IEEE/ACM International
`
`Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization, the General Co-Chair of the
`
`2006 and 2010 IEEE/ACM International Symposia on Microarchitecture, and the
`
`General Co-Chair of the 2009 IEEE/ACM International Symposium on High
`
`Performance Computer Architecture. I am serving on or have served on the
`
`technical program committees of the IEEE/ACM International Symposium on
`
`
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`Computer Architecture (1997, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012), the
`
`IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (1993, 1994, 1996,
`
`1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011,
`
`2012), the International Conference on Massively Parallel Computing Systems
`
`(1998), the ACM International Conference on Programming Language Design and
`
`Implementation (2003), the IEEE International Computer Performance and
`
`Dependability Symposium (1998, 1999), the IEEE International Conference on
`
`High Performance Computer Architecture (1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006,
`
`2007, 2008), the IEEE International Conference on Parallel Architectures and
`
`Compilation Techniques (1998, 1999, 2012), the IEEE International Conference on
`
`Parallel Processing (1999), the IEEE International Conference on Supercomputing
`
`(1997), and the IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of
`
`Systems and Software (2003, 2005, 2006).
`
`13. I have been the Editor in Chief of the ACM Transactions on Architecture and
`
`Compiler Optimization, and Associate Editor of several journals, including the
`
`Journal on Instruction Level Parallelism, IEEE Embedded Systems Letters, the
`
`IEEE Micro magazine, the IEEE Computer magazine, IEEE Transactions on
`
`Computers (two terms, 1998-2004) and ACM Transactions on Embedded
`
`Computer Systems. From 2000 to 2002, while on leave from NC State, I served
`
`as the Chief Microarchitect and Manager of the Back-End Compiler team for
`
`
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`digital signal microprocessor vendor BOPS, Inc. I have in excess of 80 peer-
`
`reviewed technical publications, many of which are frequently cited and three of
`
`which have won Best Paper awards.
`
`14. In my 20+ years as a professor of electrical and computer engineering and
`
`computer science, I have taught mass storage (disk drive) interface technologies,
`
`computer network principles, embedded system design, and related computer
`
`architectures. This has given me a deep understanding and expertise in mass
`
`storage design and technology, including fault tolerance as it relates to mass
`
`storage devices.
`
`15. A copy of my curriculum vita is attached to this declaration as Exhibit A.
`
`III. TECHNOLOGY TUTORIAL
`
`16. The technology at issue in this case involves fault tolerance in mass storage
`
`devices. Generally a (non-fault-tolerant) mass storage device is an electro-
`
`magnetic mechanical disk drive. Modern disk drives have multiple disks
`
`(sometimes called "platters") where each disk is a spinning media with its own
`
`read/write head. The overall disk drive is comprised of a stack of each disk into a
`
`column that rotates together. Each disk's head is attached to an actuator. A "disk
`
`drive" includes all of these disks, heads, etc., within one enclosure, vis.:
`
`
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`
`
`These disk drives are also called "DASDs" (for "Direct Access Storage Devices")
`
`by International Business Machines Corporation. Each disk drive has a certain
`
`amount of capacity to store binary data. Because it has moving parts, disk drives
`
`are known to fail. In addition, the circuitry that interfaces with the disk drive,
`
`called a "controller" in the art, also is prone to failure. A failure that results in the
`
`loss of data can be catastrophic. A standard engineering figure of merit in
`
`measuring the potential of failure is the mean time to failure (MTTF). One way to
`
`extend MTTF is to construct the disk drive out of highly reliable, rugged
`
`components. These components increase the expense of the disk drive, hence this
`
`approach to fault tolerance is called a Single, Large (Expensive) Disk drive
`
`(SLED).
`
`17. Another method to extend MTTF to guard against failure is to periodically
`
`make a backup copy of the contents of a disk drive on another device. Periodic
`
`
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`backups suffer from the drawback that any changes made after the last backup date
`
`are lost when a failure occurs.
`
`A. RAID
`
`18. Redundant operation of multiple disk drives is another way to extend MTTF
`
`via making backup copies of data. In one such technology, called Redundant
`
`Arrays of Inexpensive1 Disk drives ("RAID"), the mass storage device is built
`
`from multiple, physical disk drives. In a RAID, the RAID controller translates a
`
`write to the RAID into data being written in parallel to two or more disk drives. If
`
`one of the disk drives fails, then the backup of the data is up to date on the
`
`redundant drives, thereby allowing for recovery from disk drive failure. RAID
`
`technology only guards against individual disk drive failure. It is not capable of
`
`recovering from RAID controller failure.
`
`19. The idea of providing multiple physical disk drives for redundancy is not the
`
`novel part of a RAID. Rather, what sets a RAID apart is that it is a "black box"
`
`that can be interchanged with a traditional SLED without needing to change the
`
`
`1 Over time, the "I" in the RAID acronym has changed from "Inexpensive"
`to "Independent." There is no technical difference between "Redundant Array of
`Inexpensive Disks" and "Redundant Array of Independent Disks" in the art. To
`avoid ambiguity, I will use "RAID" throughout this declaration.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`hardware or software interfaces. Webster’s Computer Dictionary defines "RAID
`
`x" (where x = 0, 1, and 2) as " [a] type of RAID storage device that combines two
`
`or more hard disk drives into a single logical drive…" Webster’s Computer
`
`Dictionary 9th ed. 2001, at 308. Similarly, the Microsoft Computer Dictionary
`
`defines "RAID" saying it is " [a] data storage method in which data is distributed
`
`across a group of computer disk drives that function as a single storage unit. …"
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary 5th ed. 2002, at 437.
`
`20. The "black box" nature of a RAID (i.e., the dictionary definitions of it being a
`
`"single logical drive," or "single storage unit") is accomplished via an intelligent
`
`RAID controller. Thus a RAID must include this controller plus two or more
`
`physical disk drives (to support redundancy).
`
`21. One significant advantage of a RAID is that the user of a RAID interacts with
`
`the RAID controller as if it were a controller for a single disk drive, and this in
`
`turn simplifies replacing traditional disk drives with RAIDs.
`
`B. The '346 Patent
`
`22. The '346 Patent describes an apparatus capable of recovering from RAID
`
`controller failure in a multiple host environment. '346 Patent at Abstract. The '346
`
`Patent explains prior art approaches to such controller failure. One such prior art
`
`apparatus is illustrated in Fig. 1, vis.:
`
`
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`
`
`'346 Patent at Fig. 1.
`
`23. The approach in Fig. 1 does not provide fault tolerance, but it does provide
`
`high communications bandwidth with the RAID. ‘346 Patent at 1:35-38. In this
`
`approach, the two host computers, 100 and 101, each contain network interface
`
`controllers to communicate with the RAID, 110 and 111 (resp.). These network
`
`interface controllers inside the hosts have direct connections (120 and 121) with
`
`two RAID controllers (140 and 141) via each RAID controller’s own network
`
`interface controller (150 and 151). These two controllers allow the two host
`
`
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`computers to generally transfer data to/from the RAID independently, and thus in
`
`parallel. '346 Patent at col. 1: 24-34.
`
`24. In sum, even though there are two redundant RAID controllers and network
`
`interface controllers in this prior art apparatus, a failure of a RAID controller or its
`
`network interface controller results in system failure because it disables a host
`
`from accessing the RAID.
`
`25. In contrast, a second prior art apparatus that allows for fault tolerance is
`
`presented in the '346, vis.:
`
`
`
`12
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`
`
`'346 Patent at Fig. 2.
`
`26. In this second prior art approach, each RAID controller is augmented with a
`
`communication controller, 221 and 222 in order for the two controllers to exchange
`
`information in the case of a failure of one or the other. Additionally, in contrast to
`
`Fig. 1, the two hosts are now connected to the RAID via a HUB or SWITCH, 210.
`
`If for example one of the RAID controllers 230 itself fails, the HUB or SWITCH
`
`210 can still provide connectivity between both hosts and the RAID itself via re-
`
`
`
`13
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`routing accesses to the other RAID controller 231. The drawback is that the failure
`
`mode just described provides the hosts with only half of the access bandwidth to
`
`the RAID as was provided in the original, fully-operational system. '346 Patent at
`
`col. 1:58-59.
`
`27. The '346 Patent also describes a third prior art apparatus in Fig. 3, vis.:
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`'346 Patent at Fig. 3.
`
`28. In the above Fig. 3 prior art, if one of the RAID controllers fails, both hosts
`
`maintain connectivity to the RAID 340 via switches 310, 311, 320 and 321. As
`
`with Fig. 2, when a failure occurs, host access bandwidth to the RAID is reduced.
`
`29. In contrast with the prior art apparati, the '346 Patent and claims present an
`
`apparatus that does not suffer from the drawbacks of Fig. 2 or Fig 3, while
`
`maintaining the same bandwidth between the hosts as Fig. 1 in the presence of a
`
`RAID controller failure. This approach is illustrated below, vis.:
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`'346 Patent at Fig. 4.
`
`30. The above apparatus provides for failure of either RAID controller 480 or 481
`
`without reduced bandwidth to the RAID. Each RAID controller contains
`
`redundant network interfaces, 470 and 471 for RAID controller 460, and 480 and
`
`481 for RAID controller 461. There are now two HUB or SWITCH modules, 440
`
`and 441. If there is a failure in one RAID controller, for example 461, then all of
`
`the host access requests can be forwarded to the non-failed RAID controller, e.g.,
`
`460, via the interconnection 450. This is shown below, vis:
`
`
`
`
`
`31. Importantly, in the case of failure in the system of Fig. 4, unlike prior art
`
`(Figs. 1-3), there is no longer a reduction in access bandwidth between the hosts
`
`and the RAID when RAID controller failure occurs. '346 Patent at col. 3:1-9.
`
`Alternative preferred embodiments of the intention are shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`32. The claims of the '346 Patent at issue in this matter ("Claims at Issue") are
`
`reproduced below, vis.:
`
`1. An apparatus for a redundant interconnection between multiple hosts and a
`RAID, comprising:
`1(a): a first RAID controlling units and a second RAID controlling unit for
`processing a requirement of numerous host computers, the first RAID controlling
`unit including a first network controlling unit and a second network controlling
`unit, and the second RAID controlling unit including a third network controlling
`unit and a fourth network controlling unit; and
`1(b): a plurality of connection units for connecting the first RAID controlling units
`and the second RAID controlling unit to the numerous host computers, wherein the
`first RAID controlling unit and the second RAID controlling unit directly exchange
`information with the numerous host computers through the plurality of connecting
`units, and the first network controlling unit exchanges information with the fourth
`network controlling unit, and the second network controlling unit exchanges
`information with the third network controlling unit.
`2. The apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein said respective RAID controlling
`units are connected to the plurality of individual connecting units.
`3. The apparatus as recited in claim 2, wherein the first network interface
`controlling unit is coupled to the connecting unit of one side and the second
`network interface controlling unit is coupled to the connecting unit of another side.
`5. The apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein said plurality of connecting units
`have at least three connection ports, two of the at least three connection ports is
`coupled to one of the first network interface controlling unit and the third network
`controlling unit and the rest of the connection ports being provided as a hub
`equipment connected with the numerous host computers.
`6. The apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein said plurality of connecting units
`have at least three connection ports, two of the at least three connection port are
`coupled to one of the first network interface controlling unit and the third network
`controlling unit and the rest of the connection ports being provided as a network
`switch equipment connected with the numerous host computers.
`7. The apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein said plurality of connecting units
`have at least five connection ports, four of the at least five connection ports is
`coupled to one of the first network interface controlling unit and the third network
`
`
`
`17
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`controlling unit and the rest of the connection ports being provided as a switch
`connected with the numerous host computers.
`8. The apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein the first network interface
`controlling unit of the first RAID controlling unit being connected to a first
`connecting unit, the second network interface controlling unit of said first RAID
`controlling unit being connected to a second connecting unit, the third network
`interface controlling unit of the second RAID controlling unit being connected to
`the second connecting unit, and the fourth network interface controlling unit of the
`second RAID controlling unit being connected to the first connecting unit.
`
`
`33. I note that the inventors are non-native speakers of English. The consequence
`
`of this is that there is a typographical error in claim 1 wherein "first RAID
`
`controlling units" should instead have been "first RAID controlling unit", vis.
`
`[highlighting added]:
`
`1(a): a first RAID controlling units and a second RAID controlling unit for
`processing a requirement of numerous host computers, the first RAID controlling
`unit including a first network controlling unit and a second network controlling
`unit, and the second RAID controlling unit including a third network controlling
`unit and a fourth network controlling unit; and
`1(b): a plurality of connection units for connecting the first RAID controlling units
`and the second RAID controlling unit to the numerous host computers, wherein the
`first RAID controlling unit and the second RAID controlling unit directly exchange
`information with the numerous host computers through the plurality of connecting
`units, and the first network controlling unit exchanges information with the fourth
`network controlling unit, and the second network controlling unit exchanges
`information with the third network controlling unit.
`
`
`34. The remainder of claim 1 is consistent with this being a typographical error.
`
`For example, 1(a) states, "a first RAID controlling units and a second RAID
`
`
`
`18
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`controlling unit for processing a requirement of numerous host computers, the first
`
`RAID controlling unit including…". Similarly, 1(b) states, "first RAID controlling
`
`units and the second RAID controlling unit to the numerous host computers,
`
`wherein the first RAID controlling unit and the second RAID controlling unit….".
`
`35. The case of this being a typographical error is further reinforced in, for
`
`example, dependent claim 8 that only refers to "first RAID controlling unit," rather
`
`than "first RAID controlling units", vis.:
`
`8. The apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein the first network interface
`controlling unit of the first RAID controlling unit being connected to a first
`connecting unit, the second network interface controlling unit of said first
`RAID controlling unit being connected to a second connecting unit, the third
`network interface controlling unit of the second RAID controlling unit being
`connected to the second connecting unit, and the fourth network interface
`controlling unit of the second RAID controlling unit being connected to the
`first connecting unit.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`36. I believe that a person having ordinary skill in this art would have a
`
`bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering or Electrical
`
`Engineering and at least two years of experience in the field of fault tolerance as it
`
`relates to mass storage devices.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`V.
`
`INTERPRETATION OF CLAIMS
`
`A. "RAID "
`
`37. I understand there is a disagreement between the parties regarding the
`
`meaning of the claim term "RAID. "
`
`38. As I discuss above, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand a
`
`RAID to be a single logical unit for mass storage that provides fault tolerance and
`
`recovery via employing multiple physical disk drives. I refer the reader to my
`
`discussion above in Section III.A.
`
`B. "RAID Controlling Unit(s)"
`
`39. RAID as called out in the '346 Patent consistently includes one or more RAID
`
`controllers (i.e., "RAID Controlling Units"). As I discuss above, the function of a
`
`RAID controller is to provide redundancy by writing redundant data to multiple
`
`disk drives. Thus, a single RAID controller must be able to write to all of the disk
`
`drives in the RAID unit in order to perform redundancy. One significant
`
`advantage of a RAID is that the user of a RAID interacts with the RAID controller
`
`as if it were a single disk drive, and this in turn simplifies replacing traditional disk
`
`drives with RAIDs. I refer the reader to my discussion above in Section III.A.
`
`40. Secondly, I note that all of the figures of the patent identify the "RAID" as
`
`including one or more RAID CONTROLLERs, vis:
`
`
`
`20
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`'346 Patent at Fig. 1 [highlighting added].
`
`'346 Patent at Fig. 2 [highlighting added].
`
`
`
`21
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`'346 Patent at Fig. 3 [highlighting added].
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`'346 Patent at Fig. 4 [highlighting added].
`
`'346 Patent at Fig. 5 [highlighting added].
`
`
`
`
`
`'346 Patent at Fig. 6 [highlighting added].
`
`41. As discussed above in Section III.B, the advantage of the invention of the '346
`
`Patent in providing two RAID controllers within a RAID is that the RAID is still
`
`functional in the case of RAID controller failure. For this to be possible, both
`
`RAID controllers must necessarily be able to write to all of the disk drives that
`
`constitute a RAID.
`
`C. "Network Controlling Unit"
`
`42. A "Network Controlling Unit" or Network Controller is generally understood
`
`to one skilled in the art as a hardware controller that supplies communication
`
`functionality when attached to a computer network. Generally, there are two
`
`
`
`23
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`classes of networks: broadcast (e.g., a bus) and point-to-point (e.g., a ring or a star
`
`network). The '346 Patent calls out such point-to-point network standards, vis.:
`
`
`
`'346 Patent at col. 3:35-30.
`
`43. In the case of point-to-point controllers, the physical wires that constitute a
`
`network—or "links"—can be either unidirectional or bidirectional. Unidirectional
`
`links only support transfer of data in one direction, whereas bidirectional links
`
`share the same wire to communicate in both directions.
`
`44. I note that the prior art and preferred embodiment of the '346 Patent, as
`
`encapsulated in FIG. 1-5, show Network Controllers that have two, uni-directional
`
`links. The controllers provide two ports—one for transmission and one for
`
`reception. At the time of the '346 Patent, as is true today, a Network Controller
`
`may include multiple of these "ports." Several examples are shown below, vis.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`ATTO Celerity FC-84EN 8 Gigabit Fibre Channel Card.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Intel E1G44HTBLK I340-T4 PCI-Express Quad-Port Gigabit Ethernet Network
`
`Server Adapter.
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`Oracle Sun Multithreaded Quad Gigabit Ethernet Networking Card.
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. PATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1-3 AND 5-8 OVER HATHORN
`
`A. Overview of Hathorn
`
`45. I understand the Petitioners have asserted that US Patent 5,574,950, "Remote
`
`Data shadowing using a multimode interface to dynamically configure control
`
`link-level and communication link-level," ("Hathorn") anticipates the '346 Patent
`
`under 35 USC Section 102.
`
`
`
`26
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`Hathorn Patent at col. 1:1-12.
`
`46. Hathorn discusses RAID as a prior-art solution, noting,
`
`
`
`
`
`Hathorn at 2:4-11.
`
`47. Hathorn points out the problems with the prior art solutions for "remote data
`
`shadowing," as,
`
`
`
`27
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`
`
`Hathorn at col. 2:12-24.
`
`48. Thus the problems with RAIDs are the "back-up methods are useful only for
`
`device failures since … the secondary data has the same volume serial numbers
`
`(VOLSERs) and the DASD addresses as the primary data." Id. I note that this is
`
`consistent with my discussion above that RAIDs are "black boxes" that appear as
`
`though they are one disk drive to the system (i.e., have "same volume serial
`
`numbers…and addresses as the primary data." Id.)
`
`49. Thus Hathorn seeks to provide "further protection…for recovering data if a
`
`disaster occurs destroying the entire system or even the site." Id. Hathorn explains
`
`these kinds of disasters include, e.g., "earthquakes, fires, explosions, hurricanes,
`
`etc." Id. Hathorn notes that the sites may be separated by "several kilometers."
`
`Hathorn at col. 2:46.
`
`
`
`28
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`50. In contrast, the '346 Patent is concerned with providing enhanced redundancy
`
`to interconnect the host computers with a RAID in order to tolerate interconnect
`
`failure without reduced bandwidth to the RAIDs when failures occur. The disk
`
`drives that constitute a RAID are not separated by "several kilometers." Also, as I
`
`show below, Hathorn does not present a system that avoids reduction in bandwidth
`
`when a failure occurs. As such Hathorn is similar to the prior-art systems called
`
`out by the '346 Patent, such as, e.g., Fig. 2 of the '346 Patent.
`
`51. The invention of Hathorn is summarized in Fig. 3, vis.:
`
`
`
`
`
`29
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`Hathorn at Fig. 3.
`
`52. Here, 360 and 370 represent two "sites." The "STORAGE CONTROLLERS"
`
`322, 325, 332 and 335, each connect to individual DASDs. I note that Hathorn
`
`never mentions "RAID" in connection with Fig. 3. Instead, he states that it would
`
`require multiple DASDs (per storage controller) to provide mirroring. See Hathorn
`
`at col. 1:65-67. Furthermore, when I do interpret the discussion of RAID in
`
`Hathorn at col. 2:4-11, I cannot find a correspondence with Fig. 3. Hathorn states
`
`that a RAID is made of "many DASDs." Id. For these reasons, I disagree with the
`
`Institution Decision that a "RAID controllers are a type of DASD."
`
`53. I have not found any way to map the invention of the '346 Patent onto what is
`
`disclosed in Hathorn. I discuss this immediately below. In addition, Hathorn does
`
`not disclose a "Network Controlling Unit," also required by the claims of the '346
`
`Patent. These two deficiencies are also discussed below.
`
`B. Comparison of Hathorn to '346 Patent Claims.
`
`54. If I consider for a moment the Institution Decision that a DASD can be a
`
`RAID, then I arrive at this interpretation of Hathorn below by annotating Hathorn
`
`Fig. 3, vis.:
`
`
`
`30
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`__.._-_-—......_-___——__ ___-—__-—__ —____q
`
`.
`
`301
`
`l
`:
`:
`.
`:
`g
`.
`I
`g
`
`|I
`
`I
`I
`PRIMARY I
`I
`HOST I
`I
`I
`I
`I
`343
`l ___________
`
`|
`
`| ___________
`. 311
`312
`
`i
`l
`:
`.
`:
`:
`.
`I
`1
`I
`
`I
`I
`SECONDARY I
`I
`HOST I
`I
`I
`I
`I
`I
`
`55. The above does not disclose the intention of the '346 Patent. Rather, in this
`
`scenario, each RAID has only one RAID controller (322 for RAID — l, 325 for
`
`RAID — 2, 332 for RAID — 3, and 335 for RAID — 4). As I discuss above in
`
`Section III.B, the invention of the '346 Patent provides for recovery from the
`
`failure of one RAID Controller without losing the ability of the hosts to access data
`
`on the disk drives of the RAID. Thus this interpretation of Hathom does not
`
`disclose the Claims at issue of the '346 Patent.
`
`31
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`|PR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`31
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`

`

`56.
`
`I turn now to the potential scenario where two or more DASDs and their
`
`corresponding controllers are interpreted to disclose a RAID.
`
`I show this below in
`
`a second modification of Fig. 3 from Hathom, Vis.:
`
`30° RAID Controlling Unit
`Disk Drives
`\
`
`
`
`DASD
`
`VOL A
`VOL B
`
`
`
`PRIMARY
`
`
`
`
`
`HOST
`
`
`
`SECONDARY
`
`HOST
`
`57.
`
`I note first that making a mirrored copy of data is the function of a RAID
`
`Controlling Unit, as I discuss above in Sections 111A and VB. For Hathom to
`
`disclose claim 1 of the '346 Patent, in this second interpretation of Hathom, then it
`
`is storage controller 325 that must provide mirroring via communication with
`
`32
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`|PR2013-00635
`Dell, HP & NetApp v. ETRI
`
`32
`
`Patent Owner ETRI Ex. 2003
`IPR2013-00635
`Dell