`
` 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
`
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’346 Patent ..................................................................................... 2
`
`Claim 1 of the ’346 Patent ..................................................................... 7
`
`III. CLAIM INTERPRETATION ....................................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`“RAID” ................................................................................................ 10
`
`“RAID Controlling Unit” .................................................................... 12
`
`“First RAID Controlling Units” and “Second RAID
`Controlling Unit” ................................................................................. 13
`
`“Network Controlling Unit” ................................................................ 16
`
`“Hub” ................................................................................................... 17
`
`IV. HATHORN DOES NOT ANTICIPATE CLAIMS 1-3 AND 5-8 OF
`THE ’346 PATENT. ...................................................................................... 19
`
`A. Overview of Hathorn. .......................................................................... 19
`
`B.
`
`Hathorn Teachings Regarding RAID and Figure 3 are
`Separate and Cannot be Combined for Anticipation. ......................... 22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Hathorn Discloses RAID and Figure 3 Separately. .................. 22
`
`Combining Hathorn’s RAID Teachings and Figure 3 is
`Improper in an Anticipation Analysis. ...................................... 26
`
`Graves Does Not Condone Combining Hathorn’s RAID
`Teachings with Figure 3. ........................................................... 29
`
`C.
`
`Hathorn Does Not Disclose a “RAID” in the Claimed
`Configuration at All............................................................................. 33
`
`D. Hathorn Does Not Disclose the “First” and “Second” “RAID
`Controlling Units” Recited in Claim 1. ............................................... 37
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page ii
`
`

`

`1.
`
`2.
`
`First Possibility: An Individual DASD in Hathorn is
`Considered to be a RAID. ......................................................... 38
`
`Second Possibility: Two or More DASDs in Hathorn
`are Collectively Considered to Form a RAID. ......................... 41
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Hathorn Fails to Teach a “RAID Controlling Unit” With Two
`“Network Controlling Units,” as Required by Claim 1. ..................... 48
`
`Hathorn Fails to Anticipate Claims 2, 3 and 8 Under the
`Petition’s Interpretation of “Coupled” and “Connected.” ................... 50
`
`G. Hathorn Fails to Disclose a “Hub,” as Required by Claim 5. ............. 54
`
`H. Hathorn Fails to Disclose the “Rest of the Connection Ports
`Being Provided as . . . Connected with the Numerous Host
`Computers” Limitations Recited in Claims 5-7. ................................. 55
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......... 49, 50
`
`Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ........................ 27
`
`Gubelmann v. Gang, 408 F.2d 758 (CCPA 1969) ................................................... 49
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. MCM Portfolio, LLC, IPR2013-00217, Paper 10
`(Sept. 10, 2013) ................................................................................................... 25
`
`In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586 (CCPA 1972) .......................................................... 27, 29
`
`In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ....................................................... 37, 52
`
`In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ....................................................passim
`
`In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578 (CCPA 1981) .............................................................. 49
`
`Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ....... 19
`
`Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F. 3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......... 26
`
`Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
`1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .......................................................................................... 27
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ............................... 18
`
`MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............. 49
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................... 27
`
`Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int’l, 316 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................ 25
`
`Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ....... 26
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ................... 15, 18
`
`Proveris Sci. Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc., 739 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......... 14
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir.
`1998) ............................................................................................................. 15, 18
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page iv
`
`

`

`Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .............. 49
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996) ............ 15
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................. 27, 45
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................. 27, 32
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(8) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65 .....................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002) .......................................................11
`
`MPEP § 2112(IV) ....................................................................................................49
`
`MPEP § 2143.03 ............................................................................................... 37, 52
`
`Webster’s Computer Dictionary (9th ed. 2001) ......................................................11
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page v
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(8) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, the Patent Owner,
`
`Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (“ETRI”), hereby provides
`
`a Response to the September 27, 2013 Petition for Inter Partes Review (herein
`
`“Petition” or “Pet.”) and the challenge therein for which trial has been instituted by
`
`the Board’s March 20, 2014 Institution Decision (Paper 19).
`
`The sole challenge for trial is whether U.S. Patent No. 5,574,950 (Ex. 1005,
`
`referred to herein as “Hathorn”) anticipates claims 1-3 and 5-8 of the ’346 Patent.
`
`Claims 4 and 9 of the ’346 Patent are not subject to review in this trial. As
`
`explained herein and in the accompanying declaration of Dr. Thomas M. Conte
`
`(Ex. 2003; herein “Conte Decl.”), Hathorn fundamentally differs from the
`
`invention claimed in the ’346 Patent. Whereas the ’346 Patent concerns a RAID,
`
`Hathorn describes a “remote dual copy system.” (Hathorn at, e.g., 5:27.) Whereas
`
`the ’346 Patent provides redundant RAID controllers and connections to protect
`
`against a failure of a RAID controller or connection thereto, Hathorn’s remote
`
`copy system is designed to protect against a disaster that causes complete system
`
`failure of a primary site, as the far-away remote secondary system can continue
`
`processing and data storage in the event that the primary site is destroyed by a
`
`disaster. Due to these fundamental differences, it is a stretch, at best, to find a
`
`RAID in Hathorn, and there are certainly not RAID controllers like the claimed
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 1 of 58
`
`

`

`“RAID controlling unit[s]” in Hathorn. In addition, Hathorn also fails to disclose
`
`certain features recited in the ’346 Patent’s dependent claims subject to trial.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’346 Patent
`
`The ʼ346 Patent is directed at useful and advantageous ways to interconnect
`
`a RAID, an acronym for “redundant array of inexpensive disks,” to its host
`
`computers. Although a RAID is formed of many disk drives, it appears via a
`
`controller – a RAID controller – to its host(s) as a single disk storage peripheral.
`
`(Conte Decl. ¶¶ 18-21.) A RAID provides redundancy at the disk-drive level and
`
`thus protection against failure of one or more disk drives within the RAID. (Id. ¶
`
`18.) The inventors of the ’346 Patent did not invent the concept of RAID. Instead
`
`of providing redundancy at the level of the disk drives, as a RAID already
`
`provides, the invention described and claimed in the ’346 Patent provides novel
`
`and advantageous redundant interconnections between a RAID and its host
`
`computer(s). That interconnection provides both fault tolerance and enhanced
`
`performance, measured in terms of bandwidth, if a controller or connection fails.
`
`(Id. ¶ 31; ’346 Patent 2:11-15, 3:1-9.) Whereas a RAID per se provides fault
`
`tolerance if a disk drive fails, the claimed invention in the ’346 Patent provides
`
`fault tolerance if a RAID controller or connection fails. (Conte Decl. ¶ 31.) Thus,
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 2 of 58
`
`

`

`the ’346 Patent is aptly entitled “Apparatus for Redundant Interconnection
`
`Between Multiple Hosts and RAID” (emphasis added).
`
`The inventors of the ’346
`
`Patent were not the first to connect
`
`multiple host computers to a RAID.
`
`Figure
`
`1
`
`(reproduced
`
`right)
`
`illustrates
`
`a prior
`
`art
`
`system
`
`interconnecting two host computers
`
`100 and 101 with a RAID 130. That
`
`system has two RAID controllers
`
`140 and 141 and two connections
`
`120 and 121 to the host computers 100 and 101, respectively. That system
`
`provides twice the bandwidth of a single connection, but it is not fault tolerant.
`
`(’346 Patent 1:35-38; Conte Decl. ¶ 22-24.) If either connection or RAID
`
`controller fails, then one of the host computers is unable to communicate with the
`
`RAID. (’346 Patent 1:35-38; Conte Decl. ¶ 22-24.)
`
`The ’346 Patent also describes several prior art systems that attempt to
`
`provide the same type of redundancy (i.e., interconnection redundancy) as the
`
`invention, but none of them do so while preserving the same performance as before
`
`a controller or connection fault. Figure 2 (reproduced below right) illustrates a
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 3 of 58
`
`

`

`prior art system having a hub or
`
`switch
`
`210
`
`connecting
`
`host
`
`computers 200 and 201 with RAID
`
`controllers 230 and 231 of a RAID
`
`240. The RAID controllers 230 and
`
`231
`
`include
`
`communication
`
`controllers 221 and 222. One RAID
`
`controller is the backup for the
`
`other, should
`
`the other RAID
`
`controller or its connection to the
`
`hub or switch 210 fail. While that interconnection provides fault tolerance, a fault
`
`in one of the RAID controllers or its connection to the hub or switch causes the
`
`system to have only half the bandwidth between each of the host computers 200-
`
`201 and the RAID 240 as compared to its state before the fault. (’346 Patent 1:49-
`
`59; Conte Decl. ¶¶ 25-26.) Figure 3 illustrates another prior art system but it, like
`
`the system illustrated in Figure 2, also has only half its bandwidth in the event of a
`
`fault. (’346 Patent 1:60 – 2:7; Conte Decl. ¶¶ 28.)
`
`The inventions of the ’346 Patent, as illustrated by way of example in
`
`Figures 4 and 5, provide enhanced redundancy to interconnect the host computers
`
`with a RAID. Referring to Figure 4 (reproduced below) as an example, a RAID
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 4 of 58
`
`

`

`490 has two RAID controllers 460 and 461, each of which has two network
`
`interface controllers – 470 and 471 in the RAID controller 460, and 480 and 481 in
`
`the RAID controller 461. Two hubs or switches 440 and 441 connect each RAID
`
`controller
`
`to a plurality of host computers 400-405.
`
` This redundant
`
`interconnection scheme provides fault tolerance with the same bandwidth before
`
`and after a fault. (’346 Patent 3:1-9; Conte Decl. ¶ 31.)
`
`
`
`For example, before a RAID controller or connection fault, the host
`
`computer 404 would communicate with the RAID 490 via the hub or switch 441 to
`
`the network interface controller 481 of the RAID controller 461. (’346 Patent 3:6
`
`– 4:12.) If there is a failure of the RAID controller 461 or its connection to the hub
`
`or switch 441, then the host computer 404 could communicate with the RAID 490
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 5 of 58
`
`

`

`via the other RAID controller 460, specifically its network interface controller 471.
`
`(Id. 4:19-25; Conte Decl. ¶ 30.) The following annotated versions of Figure 4 of
`
`the ’346 Patent illustrate these two data transfer paths. The drawing on the left
`
`illustrates the primary data transfer path through the network interface controller
`
`481 before failover, and the drawing on the right illustrates the data transfer path
`
`through the network interface controller 471 after failure of the RAID controller
`
`461.
`
`
`
`
`
`(Conte Decl. ¶ 30.)
`
`Similarly, the network interface controller 480 can be used if the network
`
`interface controller 470 in the other RAID controller fails. (’346 Patent 4:19-25)
`
`Thus, if either network interface controller 470 or 481 or its connection to the hub
`
`or switch fails, then network interface controller 480 or 471, respectively, in the
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 6 of 58
`
`

`

`other RAID controller can serve the same function, and the overall bandwidth
`
`between each of the host computers 400-405 and the RAID 490 remains the same.
`
`(Conte Decl. ¶ 31.) Accordingly, the present invention “provides an apparatus for
`
`a redundant interconnection between multiple host computers and a RAID, which
`
`is capable of supporting a fault tolerance of a RAID controller and simultaneously
`
`heightening a performance” relative to the prior art systems, i.e., maintaining
`
`bandwidth despite a fault. (See, e.g., ’346 Patent 2:11-15.)
`
`B. Claim 1 of the ’346 Patent
`
`The sole independent claim under review is claim 1, which refers to “first”
`
`and “second” “RAID controlling units” and “first,” “second,” “third,” and “fourth”
`
`“network controlling units” as follows:
`
`1. An apparatus for a redundant interconnection between
`multiple hosts and a RAID, comprising:
`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
`a plurality of connection units for connecting the
`first RAID controlling units and the second RAID
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 7 of 58
`
`

`

`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.
` To better appreciate how the terminology in claim 1 correlates to the
`
`illustrated embodiments in the ’346 Patent, the following color-annotated version
`
`of Figure 4 of the ’346 Patent is provided:
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 8 of 58
`
`
`
`

`

`In this drawing, the recited “RAID” is item 490, although the disk drives
`
`that, in part, form the RAID are not illustrated. The recited “multiple hosts” are
`
`denoted by reference numbers 400-405, and the claimed “apparatus” comprises
`
`first and second “RAID controlling units” (whose annotations are explained in
`
`detail below) and a “plurality of connection units,” corresponding to hubs or
`
`switches 440 and 441 in the drawing above.
`
`In the color-annotated drawing above, the “first RAID controlling units” is
`
`enclosed in a blue rectangle in the lower left, while the “second RAID controlling
`
`units” is enclosed in a red rectangle in the lower right. Claim 1 has a minor
`
`typographical error reciting “first RAID controlling units” in the plural, but “units”
`
`is readily understood here to mean the singular “unit.” (Conte Decl. ¶¶ 33-35.)
`
`The first and second “network controlling units” are illustrated in violet and pink,
`
`respectively, and are part of the “first RAID controlling unit[]” on the left. The
`
`third and fourth “network controlling units” are illustrated in green and yellow,
`
`respectively, and are part of the “second RAID controlling unit” on the right. Note
`
`that the “third network controlling unit” is on the right, and the “fourth network
`
`controlling unit” is on the left, as illustrated above.
`
`The recited “connecting units,” corresponding to hubs or switches 440 and
`
`441 in the drawing above, connect the two “RAID controlling units” to the
`
`“numerous host computers” 400-405. The orange arrows in the drawing above
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 9 of 58
`
`

`

`illustrate one manner of “exchange[ of] information” between the first and fourth
`
`network interface controllers and also between the second and third network
`
`interface controllers, as recited in claim 1.
`
`III. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`A.
`
`“RAID”
`
`The Board interpreted “RAID” as simply what the acronym stands for:
`
`“redundant array of inexpensive disks.” (Institution Decision (Paper 19) at 8.) The
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute this interpretation for purposes of this trial but notes
`
`that the terms “redundant,” “array,” and “disks” are significant.
`
`First, the term “disks” in the acronym means disk drives, rather than disk
`
`platters. The term “disks” can have multiple meanings. A single disk drive
`
`(sometimes imprecisely called a “disk”) may have multiple disk platters
`
`(sometimes imprecisely called “disks”), but a single disk drive is in no sense a
`
`RAID. (See Conte Decl. ¶¶ 16, 18.) Instead, a RAID is an array of multiple disk
`
`drives configured for redundancy. (Id. ¶ 18.)
`
`Second, a RAID, as an “array,” is a single logical storage unit of disk drives.
`
`Multiple technical dictionaries support this view. For example, 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 disks into a single logical
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 10 of 58
`
`

`

`drive. . . .” (Webster’s Computer Dictionary at 308 (9th ed. 2001) (Ex. 2004 at 11)
`
`(emphasis added); Conte Decl. ¶ 19.) Similarly, the Microsoft Computer
`
`Dictionary defines “RAID” saying, in part, “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 at 437 (5th ed. 2002) (Ex. 2005
`
`at 3) (emphasis added); Conte Decl. ¶ 19.) In fact, a RAID is an alternative to a
`
`Single Large Expensive Disk (SLED), which, of course, presents itself as a single
`
`logical drive. (See Conte Decl. ¶ 16-18.) As Dr. Conte explains, “[W]hat sets a
`
`RAID apart is that it is a 'black box' that can be interchanged with a traditional disk
`
`drive without needing to change the hardware or software interfaces.” (Conte
`
`Decl. ¶ 19; see also generally id. ¶¶ 18-21, 38.)
`
`Moreover, Hathorn also supports the view that a RAID “array” must be a
`
`single logical storage unit of disk drives. As explained in detail in § IV-B-1 infra
`
`at 22-26, Hathorn, when properly understood, makes a clear distinction between a
`
`“RAID” and a mirroring or dual-copy system employing two disk drives, which,
`
`although redundant, do not form an “array” in the sense of a RAID. Indeed,
`
`Hathorn describes these two scenarios as “alternative[s].” (Hathorn 1:60 – 2:11.)
`
`Third, as the Board’s interpretation reflects, a RAID is more than just a
`
`collection of disk drives. Something transforms an array of disk drives into a
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 11 of 58
`
`

`

`redundant array. That something is a RAID controller, as discussed in the next
`
`section.
`
`In summary, taking into account the underlying meaning of the terms in the
`
`acronym, “RAID” should be understood to mean “a single logical unit for mass
`
`storage that provides fault tolerance and recovery via employing multiple physical
`
`disk drives.” (Conte Decl. ¶ 38.)
`
`B.
`
`“RAID Controlling Unit”
`
`The Board preliminarily interpreted “RAID controlling unit” and “RAID
`
`controller” synonymously as “a component that controls operation of the RAID.”
`
`(Institution Decision at 8.) Only the phrase “RAID controlling unit” appears in the
`
`claims against which trial has been instituted. While the Board’s preliminary
`
`interpretation is not incorrect, it would be useful in deciding the patentability issues
`
`in this case to elaborate slightly more upon what the terms in that interpretation
`
`mean. As noted above, a “RAID controlling unit” is what provides the redundancy
`
`in a RAID. Thus, part of the “operation” that a RAID controller “controls” is
`
`storing data in some redundant fashion among the disk drives in the array and also
`
`being able to read that data, no matter what disk drive the data or part of the data is
`
`on. “[T]he 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
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 12 of 58
`
`

`

`redundancy.” (Conte Decl. ¶ 39.) Even if there are multiple RAID controllers,
`
`“both RAID controllers must necessarily be able to write to all of the disk drives
`
`that constitute a RAID.” (Id. ¶ 41.)
`
`The Patent Owner therefore proposes that for deciding the patentability
`
`issues in this trial, the Board refine its interpretation of “RAID controlling unit” to
`
`be “a component that controls operation of the RAID so as to provide redundant
`
`storage of data among the array of disk drives.” A corollary of this interpretation
`
`is that the RAID controlling unit must be able to write to and read from (except in
`
`the event of a disk failure) all disk drives of the RAID array. “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. . . .
`
`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 single disk drive, and this in turn
`
`simplifies replacing traditional disk drives with RAIDs.” (Id. ¶ 20-21.)
`
`C.
`
`“First RAID Controlling Units” and “Second RAID Controlling
`Unit”
`
`Claim 1 should be interpreted such that the “first” and “second” “RAID
`
`controlling units” are RAID controllers for the same RAID. That is so based on an
`
`analysis of the claim language, the specification, and common sense.
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 13 of 58
`
`

`

`The language of claim 1 itself supports the view that the “first” and “second”
`
`“RAID controlling units” are RAID controllers for the same RAID. Claim 1 refers
`
`to only one RAID: “a RAID” in line 2. Although “a RAID” appears in the
`
`preamble (“An apparatus for a redundant interconnection between multiple hosts
`
`and a RAID”), the preamble in this case gives “life, meaning, and vitality” to the
`
`claim. Proveris Sci. Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc., 739 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (citations omitted). That is so for several reasons. First, the phrase “a
`
`RAID” in the preamble provides support and context for the “RAID controlling
`
`units” recited extensively in the body. Those RAID controlling units are for the
`
`“RAID” introduced in the preamble. There is no other possible RAID for which
`
`they could be the controlling units. Second, the preamble also gives life and
`
`meaning, as “multiple hosts” in the preamble provides antecedent basis for “the
`
`numerous host computers” in the body. Id. (“[W]hen limitations in the body of the
`
`claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble
`
`may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” (citations omitted).)
`
`Third, “the preamble may be construed as limiting when it recites particular
`
`structure or steps that are highlighted as important by the specification,” id.
`
`(citations omitted), and that is the case here, as explained below.
`
`The specification also supports the understanding that the “first” and
`
`“second” “RAID controlling units” are RAID controllers for the same RAID. In
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 14 of 58
`
`

`

`Figure 4, the RAID controllers 460 and 461 are part of and for the same RAID
`
`490. In Figure 5, the RAID controllers (not numbered) are for the same RAID
`
`530. In Figure 6, the RAID controllers 620 and 630 are for the same RAID (not
`
`numbered). Even in the prior art illustrated in Figures 1-3, the two RAID
`
`controllers are for the same RAID. In every single embodiment in the ’346 Patent,
`
`both RAID controllers are for the same RAID. In fact, there is no embodiment
`
`having two RAIDS in the ’346 Patent.
`
`In light of this clear, consistent disclosure in the specification, the claims
`
`should likewise be interpreted such that the “first” and “second” “RAID
`
`controlling units” are RAID controllers for the same RAID. See Renishaw PLC v.
`
`Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The
`
`construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the
`
`patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.”)
`
`(quoted with approval in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (en banc)); see also Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
`
`1582 (Fed.Cir.1996) (“[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim
`
`construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the
`
`meaning of a disputed term.”) (quoted with approval in Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315).
`
`Finally, common sense further supports the view that the “first” and
`
`“second” “RAID controlling units” are RAID controllers for the same RAID. The
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 15 of 58
`
`

`

`entire point of the invention in the ’346 Patent is to provide for “redundant
`
`interconnection” between host computers and a RAID. (’346 Patent at, e.g., Title,
`
`Abstract.) A highly significant part of that interconnection is the RAID controller.
`
`By providing redundant RAID controllers, the ’346 Patent enables the host
`
`computers to continue to use the RAID after one of its controllers fails. See § II-A
`
`supra at 6 (illustrating failover when one RAID controller fails). (’346 Patent
`
`2:11-15, 3:1-9, 4:19-25.) The invention would not make sense at all if there was a
`
`separate RAID for each RAID controller. In that case, failure of a RAID controller
`
`would mean that its RAID is could not be accessed by the host computers.
`
`D.
`
`“Network Controlling Unit”
`
` “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.” (Conte Decl.
`
`¶ 42.) In the context of the ’346 Patent, Figures 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.'” (Id. ¶ 44 (providing
`
`examples of multi-port network controllers).) Accordingly, a network controlling
`
`unit should be interpreted as “a controller
`
`that supplies communication
`
`functionality when attached to a computer network and including one or more
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 16 of 58
`
`

`

`ports.” The fact that the controller may have any number of ports is consonant
`
`with the broadest reasonable interpretation. It would be unduly limiting to require
`
`only one port, especially where, as here, the specification discloses multi-port
`
`network controllers.
`
`E.
`
`“Hub”
`
`The Institution Decision interpreted the phrase “connection unit” to mean “a
`
`hub or switch.” (Institution Decision at 11.) However, the Institution Decision did
`
`not resolve the parties’ dispute about the interpretation of “hub.” The Petition
`
`argued that “hub” should mean “hub or switch.” (Pet. at 6.) The Patent Owner
`
`instead contends that a hub and a switch are not one and the same. Although, the
`
`Institution Decision stated that the Board was “not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments,” the Institution Decision did not interpret “hub.” It is necessary to
`
`choose between the parties’ proposed interpretations in order to decide the
`
`patentability of claim 5, which refers to “the rest of the connection ports [of the
`
`connecting units] being provided as a hub equipment” (emphasis added). Hathorn
`
`teaches only switches, such as the dynamic switches 305 and 315. (Hathorn Fig.
`
`3.) Thus, if the term “hub” does not encompass a switch, then Hathorn does not
`
`anticipate claim 5.
`
`Although one sentence of the ’346 Patent suggests that the shorter term
`
`“hub” may sometimes be used as a shorthand for the longer phrase “hub or switch”
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 17 of 58
`
`

`

`(’346 Patent 3:10-18), that is not to suggest that a hub and a switch are the same
`
`for all purposes throughout the ’346 Patent. Other portions of the ’346 Patent
`
`maintain the distinction between a hub and a switch. For example, Figures 4 and 5
`
`of the ’346 Patent indicate that the connection units 440 and 441 may be either a
`
`“HUB OR SWITCH.” If the term “hub” were intended to mean “hub or switch”
`
`universally in the ’346 Patent, then Figures 4 and 5 would say “HUB” rather than
`
`“HUB OR SWITCH.” One of skill in the art, reading the ’346 Patent as a whole,
`
`would understand that a hub is sometimes just a hub (and not a switch) in the ’346
`
`Patent. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 389 (1996)
`
`(“[A claim] term can be defined only in a way that comports with the [patent]
`
`instrument as a whole.” (emphasis added)); accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.
`
`The ’346 Patent’s specification does not so clearly redefine the term “hub”
`
`to conflate terms that have different meanings. See Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249
`
`(specification’s definition of claim term “must, of course, appear with reasonable
`
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision” (citations omitted).) The requisite “clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision” are lacking in the ’346 Patent specification, given its
`
`continued use of the term “switch” along with “hub.”
`
`Finally, claim differentiation also supports this view. The doctrine of claim
`
`differentiation “is ultimately based on the common sense notion that different
`
`words or phrases used in separate claims are presumed to indicate that the claims
`
`IPR2013-00635
`
`Response
`
`Page 18 of 58
`
`

`

`have different meanings and scope.” Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc.,
`
`177 F.3d 968, 971-72 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Claim 5 refers to “hub equipment” in
`
`relation to the “connection units,” whereas claims 6 and 7 refer to “network switch
`
`equipment” and “a switch,” respectively, in the sa