Paper No.
`
`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 IPR2013-00635
`Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction...................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Statement of Material Facts in Dispute .............................................................. 1
`
`III. Statement of Relief Requested........................................................................... 1
`
`IV. Response to Patent Owner’s Arguments ............................................................ 1
`
`A. Overview.................................................................................................... 1
`
`B. Hathorn discloses “a first RAID controlling unit” and “a second RAID
`controlling unit”.......................................................................................... 2
`
`1. Hathorn discloses a RAID and RAID controlling units .........................3
`
`2. PO’s explanation of RAID is improperly narrow ..................................5
`
`3. PO incorrectly narrows the Board’s construction of RAID
`controlling unit ............................................................................................6
`
`i. The claim language itself does not call for PO’s narrowing ............6
`
`ii. There is no intrinsic evidence or independent extrinsic evidence to
`further narrow RAID controlling unit .....................7
`
`iii. PO’s technical basis for narrowing the Board’s construction is
`incorrect..................................................................7
`
`C. Hathorn teaches a “RAID controlling unit” with two “network
`controlling unit(s)”..................................................................................... 8
`
`1. PO’s construction of “network [interface] controlling unit” is
`not the broadest reasonable construction.....................................................9
`
`2. Hathorn’s ports teach network [interface] controlling units.................10
`
`D. The term “connected” in claims 2, 3, and 8 includes connections
`through hubs or switches.......................................................................... 11
`
`E. Hathorn teaches the “hub equipment” of Claim 5....................................... 13
`ii
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`F. Hathorn teaches the “rest of the connection ports being provided
`as…[hub equipment/network switch equipment] connected with the
`numerous host computers” limitations recited in claims 5-7 .................... 14
`
`G. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 15
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC,
`403 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ………………………………..……………..7
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)………………………………………………….......13
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safar Water Filtration Systems, Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)…………………….……………...………………...13
`
`In re Hyatt,
`708 F.2d 712 (Fed. Cir. 1983)……………………….……………………………...15
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23………………………………………………………………..........1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)……………………………………………………………...…6
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Patent Owner (“PO”) filed its Response to Petition on June 20, 2014
`
`(“Response,” Paper 28). Petitioner submits this reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23.
`
`II.
`
`Statement of Material Facts in Dispute
`PO did not submit a statement of material facts in its Response to Petition.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner neither denies nor admits any facts.
`
`III.
`
`Statement of Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-3 and 5-8 of the ‘346 patent by way
`
`of this inter partes review.
`
`IV. Response to Patent Owner’s Arguments
`A.
`Overview
`PO’s validity arguments rest upon flawed reasoning regarding the “RAID
`
`controlling unit” limitation. It is very clear that US Patent 5,574,950 (Ex. 1005,
`
`hereinafter, “Hathorn”) teaches a redundant array of inexpensive disks (RAID). As
`
`explained further below, the data mirroring operation of Hathorn is a RAID
`
`configuration, and even PO’s own expert acknowledge that Hathorn teaches a RAID.
`
`Given that Hathorn has a RAID, the issue presented in the Response is “which
`
`components in Hathorn are RAID controllers?” PO narrowly construes the first and
`
`second RAID controlling units to be separate computing devices that each read and
`
`write directly to all of the disk drives in the RAID.
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`But PO’s construction is not the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term.
`
`The Board construed “RAID controlling unit” according to its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation—“a component that controls operation of the RAID.” Each of
`
`Hathorn’s storage controllers satisfy the Board’s construction because each one
`
`controls Hathorn’s mirroring operation.
`
`PO touts the advantages of redundancy and the particular failover abilities of its
`
`own Figure 4 embodiment and attempts to read these features into the claims by
`
`arguing that a RAID controlling unit must directly access all disks in a RAID. But
`
`claims 1-3 and 5-8 are not limited to PO’s Figure 4 embodiment, nor do they claim
`
`the advantages of redundancy or any particular failover technique.
`
`When the disputed ‘346 patent limitations are given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction, the prior art cited in the Petition discloses each and every limitation of
`
`claims 1-3 and 5-8.
`
`B.
`
`Hathorn discloses “a first RAID controlling unit” and “a second
`RAID controlling unit”
`Hathorn teaches RAID storage by teaching data mirroring (also called “data
`
`shadowing”) using DASDs 326 and 336. Thus, DASDs 326 and 336 of Figure 3
`
`are configured as a redundant array of inexpensive disks. And storage controllers
`
`325 and 335 are first and second RAID controlling units because they control the
`
`data mirroring.
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`1.
`
`Hathorn discloses a RAID and RAID controlling units
`
`As shown in the annotated figure below, Hathorn shows data mirroring
`
`performed by storage controllers 325, 335:
`
`Hathorn, DHPN-
`1005, FIGURE 3
`(annotated to show
`data mirroring)
`
`Storage
`controllers 325,
`335 control
`DASDs 326, 336
`to save mirrored
`data as a RAID
`
`Hathorn explains that storage controller 325 saves data to DASD 326 and sends
`
`that data to be shadowed (i.e., mirrored) to storage controller 335. Storage controller
`
`335 saves that data and signals to storage controller 325 that the data has been
`
`successfully written to DASD 336. DHPN-1003 at 9:29-50, DHPN-1006 (Mercer
`
`Decl.) at pp. 142-144 (citing data mirroring as an example of exchanged information);
`
`see also id. at 22-23 (citing Weygant to show that disk mirroring is RAID level 1); see
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`also DHPN-1012, 2nd Mercer Decl. at pp. 3-4 (citing inter alia DHPN-1011, Chen, to
`
`show that mirroring and shadowing are the same concept and both are included within
`
`RAID level 1). Thus, DASDs 326 and 336 save the mirrored data and are used as a
`
`redundant array of inexpensive disks in a RAID level 1 configuration. See, e.g.,
`
`DHPN-1003 (Weygant) at 153 (defining RAID level 1 as mirroring). This is true even
`
`if each DASD were to include only one disk drive.
`
`It follows that the storage controllers 325 and 335 of Hathorn are each RAID
`
`controlling units because they each control some part of the mirroring operation of
`
`Hathorn’s RAID. DHPN-1012 (2nd Mercer Decl.) at pp. 12-14. Hathorn’s storage
`
`controller 325 controls the operation of the RAID by storing data to DASD 326 and
`
`initiating a remote write that causes data to be stored to DASD 336. Id. at pp. 13-14.
`
`Storage controller 335 controls the operation of the RAID by cooperating with
`
`controller 325 to store the data to DASD 336. Id. Therefore, Hathorn’s storage
`
`controllers 325, 335 teach the claimed first and second RAID controlling units.
`
`In fact, Petitioners and PO agree that storage controllers 325 and 335 control
`
`operation of the RAID. Paper 28 (Response) at p. 43 (“ only a combination of the two
`
`storage controllers 325 and 335 working together can control the operation of that
`
`RAID… But that means that there is only one RAID controlling unit, not two.”). The
`
`question is whether storage controllers 325 and 335 are one RAID controlling unit or
`
`two. As explained above, Hathorn’s controllers 325, 335 disclose two RAID
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`controlling units—consistent with the Board’s construction of “RAID controlling
`
`units”—because Hathorn’s controllers each provide control for the mirroring
`
`operation.
`
`2.
`
`PO’s explanation of RAID is improperly narrow
`
`Hathorn teaches a RAID. Specifically, Hathorn teaches an operation that it
`
`refers to as “shadowing,” where mirroring and shadowing are the same concept and
`
`both are included within RAID level 1. DHPN-1012, 2nd Mercer Decl. at p. 4. PO
`
`proffers an explanation of RAID that excludes the data mirroring operation of
`
`Hathorn, but PO’s explanation improperly narrows RAID and is plainly contradicted
`
`by, e.g., Chen (DHPN-1011). Id. at pp. 3-4 Additionally, Hathorn also explains that its
`
`DASDs can be configured as a RAID. DHPN-1005 at 2:5-11.
`
`Even PO’s own expert Dr. Conte acknowledged in his declaration that Hathorn
`
`discloses mirroring:
`
`I note first that making a mirrored copy of data is the function of a
`RAID Controlling Unit, as I discussed above… Since mirroring is
`provided by all of 325, 335, 305 and 315, this hypothetically would
`constitute a “RAID Controlling Unit A.” (ETRI-2003 (Conte Decl.) at
`pp. 32-33, emphasis added.)
`
`That is exactly what Hathorn discloses – storage controller 325 mirrors data via
`
`storage controller 335 through switches 305 and 315. DHPN-1005 (Hathorn) at 9:29-
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`51. So Petitioners and PO’s expert agree that Hathorn includes a RAID. There is no
`
`real dispute that Hathorn teaches a RAID.
`
`3.
`
`PO incorrectly narrows the Board’s construction of RAID
`controlling unit
`
`PO argues that an individual RAID controlling unit must be able to write
`
`directly to all of the disk drives in a RAID. But this argument begs the question—it
`
`assumes that the claims require this feature, which may indeed be advantageous. But
`
`it is not claimed in apparatus claims 1-3 and 5-8. The parties’ (and the Board’s) focus
`
`should be on the actual claim language, not unclaimed advantages.
`
`The Board correctly construed RAID controlling unit as “a component that
`
`controls operation of the RAID” according to its broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The claims, the specification, and the
`
`file history do not require the “RAID controlling unit” to implement a RAID
`
`configuration all by itself by performing all writes directly—especially when applying
`
`the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard.
`
`i.
`
`The claim language itself does not call for PO’s
`narrowing
`
`The language of claim 1 provides no support for PO’s added features. Claim 1
`
`expresses no relationship between the RAID and the RAID controlling units, nor does
`
`it define the operation of the RAID controlling unit with respect to the RAID or to
`
`disks in the RAID.
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`ii.
`
`There is no intrinsic evidence or independent extrinsic
`evidence to further narrow RAID controlling unit
`
`Neither party defines “RAID controlling unit” using a dictionary, textbook, or
`
`other independent source. That is because the term “RAID controlling unit” is a
`
`creation of the claim drafter. But neither the specification nor the file history define
`
`the term. So the Board should decline PO’s invitation to narrow the Board’s
`
`construction of “RAID controlling unit” because there is no intrinsic or independent
`
`extrinsic evidence that would narrow the term any further. See also DHPN-1012 (2nd
`
`Mercer Decl.) at p.5. In fact, even PO’s expert, Dr. Conte, agrees with the Board’s
`
`construction:
`
`Q: The Board construed a RAID controller unit as a component that
`controls operation of the RAID.
`A: That's correct.
`Q: Do you agree with that definition?
`A: Yes, I do. (ETRI-2007 (Conte Depo. Tr.) 64.)
`iii.
`PO’s technical basis for narrowing the Board’s
`construction is incorrect
`
`PO argues that a RAID is a single logical unit in which all disks are directly
`
`accessed by a given RAID controlling unit. Paper 28 (Response) at pp. 36-37. But
`
`Weygant states that “a RAID device consists of a group of disks that can be
`
`configured in many ways, either as a single unit or in various combinations of striped
`
`in mirrored configurations,” indicating that a RAID does not have to be a single
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`logical unit. DHPN-1003 (Weygant) at 153; see also id. at 49; DHPN-1006 (Mercer
`
`Decl.) at pp. 22-23 (citing Weygant’s definition of “RAID”). See also DHPN-1012
`
`(2nd Mercer Decl.) at p. 3-4.
`
`Also, PO relies on the concept of failure tolerance to assert that a RAID
`
`controlling unit must directly access all disks in the RAID. Paper 28 (Response) at 42-
`
`46(citing ETRI-2003 (Conte Decl.) at ¶¶ 29-31, 41, and 55). But failure tolerance is
`
`not a concept that appears in claims 1-3 and 5-8. It would be inappropriate to read this
`
`feature into the claims unless compelled by the specification or the file history, but no
`
`compelling reason exists. See, e.g., Nazomi Comm’ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC, 403
`
`F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Because nothing in the specification or file history narrows the term to the
`
`specific functionality of Figure 4 of the ‘346 patent, the technical basis of PO’s
`
`narrowing definition is incorrect. For at least these reasons, the Board’s construction
`
`of “RAID controlling unit” should not be narrowed further. Hathorn’s storage
`
`controllers 325, 335 each satisfy the claim language.
`
`C.
`
`Hathorn teaches a “RAID controlling unit” with two “network
`controlling unit(s)”
`Each one of the ports (A, B, C, D) of the storage controllers 322, 325, 332, 335
`
`is a “network controlling unit” or “network interface controlling unit.” Specifically,
`
`each port is a component allowing a storage controller to communicate over a
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`network. DHPN-1005 (Hathorn) at 7:57-6:15. PO’s attempt to limit “network
`
`controlling units” and “network interface controlling units” to specific hardware cards
`
`is inconsistent with the broadest reasonable construction.
`
`1.
`
`PO’s construction of “network [interface] controlling unit”
`is not the broadest reasonable construction
`
`The Board correctly applied the plain-and-ordinary-meaning of the terms
`
`“network controlling unit” and “network interface controlling unit.” PO drafted its
`
`claims using these broad, generic terms. Now, however, PO seeks to narrow those
`
`terms by equating them with pictures of specific hardware referred to in the art as
`
`“cards” or “adapters.” The term “network [interface] controlling unit” intentionally
`
`avoids referring to any particular type of hardware, is not defined (or even used) in the
`
`specification, and is a creation of the draftsman. Further, Conte’s Declaration shows
`
`pictures of cards but does not actually link the terms “network [interface] controlling
`
`unit” to a hardware card or adapter. ETRI-2003 (Conte Decl.) at 24-26; see also
`
`DHPN-1012 (2nd Mercer Decl.) at pp. 5-8 (contrasting PO’s claim terms with
`
`hardware terms) , citing DHPN-1013, 1014. Therefore, it is improper to limit
`
`“network [interface] controlling unit” to any specific hardware configuration.
`
`PO also erroneously attempts to distinguish ports and “network [interface]
`
`controlling units,” using its own specification. Paper 28 (Response) at pp.16-17. The
`
`distinction in the specification between ports and network interface controllers does
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`not inform how broad or narrow the term “network [interface] controlling units”
`
`should be. Also, PO has drawn attention to erroneous "ports" as TX and RX links of
`
`“network interface controllers” -- which are never identified as "ports" in the ‘346
`
`specification. DHPN-1012 (2nd Mercer Decl.) at p. 7-8. PO has made a false analogy
`
`because the only teachings in the ‘346 specification that use the term “port” refer to
`
`”fibre channel ports” of the hub or switch and not the interface controllers. Id.
`
`Therefore, PO’s arguments are without merit. By contrast, Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction (“any component allowing a device to communicate over a network”) is
`
`consistent with the plain-and-ordinary meaning of those terms. DHPN-1012 (2nd
`
`Mercer Decl.) at pp. 5-8.
`
`2.
`
`Hathorn’s ports teach network [interface] controlling units
`
`Hathorn teaches that its ports A, B, C, and D allow the storage controllers to
`
`communicate with dynamic switches 305 and 315:
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`First and second
`network controlling
`units
`
`Third and fourth
`network
`controlling units
`
`DHPN-1005, FIGURE 3
`(annotated)
`
`Further, Hathorn teaches that the controller ports communicate over the
`
`network as either channel- or control-unit link-level facilities and also teaches specific
`
`signals and techniques for communication using the ports. DHPN-1005 (Hathorn) at
`
`7:57-8:15 and discussion of Figs. 4-8 generally; DHPN-1006 (Mercer Decl.) at pp.
`
`137-139; DHPN-1012 (2nd Mercer Decl.) at pp. 14-15. Hathorn’s ports control
`
`communication over the network, thereby allowing the storage controllers to
`
`communicate over the network. Accordingly, Hathorn’s ports teach the claimed
`
`“network [interface] control units.”
`
`D.
`
`The term “connected” in claims 2, 3, and 8 includes connections
`through hubs or switches
`The term “connected” in claims 2, 3, and 8 is not limited to direct connections
`
`but includes connections through hubs or switches. The ‘346 patent uses “connected”
`
`and “connecting” broadly to include connections through hubs and switches. DHPN-
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`1012 (2nd Mercer Decl.) at pp. 8-10 (citing to the ‘346 patent at 3:31-38 and claim 1).
`
`Therefore, when construing the term “connected” one must not exclude those
`
`connections that are made via a hub or switch. As a result, connections made through
`
`dynamic switches 305 and 315 of Figure 3 of Hathorn satisfy the language of claims
`
`2, 3, and 8.
`
`PO asserts that Petitioner construed the term “connected” to require direct
`
`connection without an intermediary device. Paper 28 (Response) at 50-51. Not so.
`
`Petitioner did not construe “connected,” but only construed “coupled,” and Petitioner
`
`certainly did not construe “connected” to exclude connections through hubs or
`
`switches. Paper 1 (Petition) at 7; see also DHPN-1006 at 17-18; see also DHPN-1012
`
`(2nd Mercer Decl.) at pp. 9-10.
`
`PO is incorrect about claim 2 for another reason. Claim 2 states that the RAID
`
`controlling units are connected to the plurality of individual connecting units, where
`
`plurality is the object of the preposition “to.” Claim 2 does not require that each
`
`RAID controlling unit connects to all of the individual connecting units, but rather is
`
`connected to the plurality without specifying connection to one or all of the
`
`connecting units within the plurality. Accordingly, the Board should reject PO’s
`
`argument that “connected to the plurality of individual connecting units” means
`
`“connected to each of the individual connecting units.”
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`Hathorn teaches the “hub equipment” of Claim 5
`E.
`The ‘346 patent defines “hub” to mean “hub or switch”: “hubs 440, 441 … can
`
`be as a hub or a switch. Hereinafter, they are named a ‘hub’ altogether.” ‘346 patent at
`
`3:13-18; see also Paper 1, Petition, at p. 6, citing DHPN-1006 (Mercer Decl.) at pp.
`
`16-17. Here, the patentee clearly and deliberately acted as his own lexicographer. See
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“ the
`
`specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that
`
`differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s
`
`lexicography governs.”). The “hub equipment” of claim 5 is intended to cover
`
`Hathorn’s dynamic switches 305 and 315.
`
`The doctrine of claim differentiation does not change how “hub equipment”
`
`should be understood in claim 5. Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, “when an
`
`applicant uses different terms in the claim it is permissible to infer that he intended his
`
`choice of different terms to reflect a differentiation in the meaning of those terms.”
`
`See, e.g., Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safar Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111,
`
`1119-1120 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, when “hub equipment” is construed to include a
`
`hub or a switch in claim 5, then claims 5 and 6 are still different—claim 5 refers to a
`
`hub or a switch, whereas claim 6 refers to only a switch (or switch equipment).
`
`Therefore, Petitioner’s construction of “hub” as a hub or a switch is consistent with
`
`the doctrine of claim differentiation.
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`F.
`
`Hathorn teaches the “rest of the connection ports being provided
`as…[hub equipment/network switch equipment] connected with
`the numerous host computers” limitations recited in claims 5-7
`Hathorn anticipates claims 5-7 by showing all of the connection ports of
`
`dynamic switches 305 and 315 being provided as hub equipment/network switch
`
`equipment. Claim 5 requires that “two of the at least three connection ports is [sic]
`
`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” (emphasis added).
`
`In claims 5-7, it is the hub equipment /network switch equipment that is
`
`“connected with the numerous host computers.” The claim language does not require
`
`the connection ports themselves to connect to the host computers, as PO argues. Paper
`
`28 (Response) at 55-57. PO’s argument assumes that the connection ports are
`
`connected with the numerous host computers, but that assumption fails as a matter of
`
`grammar. If “connected with” is taken to modify “connection ports,” then that is a
`
`misplaced modifier. DHPN-1015 (Strunk & White) at p. 30 (“Modifiers should come,
`
`if possible, next to the words they modify.”); see also In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1983) (“A claim must be read in accordance with the precepts of English
`
`grammar.”). By contrast, Petitioner’s construction follows appropriate English
`
`grammar.
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`Furthermore, use of the term “the rest” does not mean that a connection port in
`
`the “two of the at least three connection ports” cannot be provided as hub equipment
`
`or network switch equipment. For instance, in claim 5 all of the “at least three”
`
`connection ports may be provided as the hub equipment if at least two of them are
`
`“coupled to one of the first network interface controlling unit and the third network
`
`controlling unit.” The same applies for claims 6 and 7.
`
`PO argues that its construction of this claim term is consistent with the
`
`embodiments shown in Figures 4-6. Paper 28, p. 55. But Petitioner’s construction
`
`(hub equipment/network switch equipment is connected with the numerous host
`
`computers) is also consistent with the embodiments shown in Figures 4-6.
`
`Because Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the specification and the
`
`rules of English grammar, it is therefore more correct according to the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation
`
`Conclusion
`G.
`For the reasons set forth in the Petition and above, claims 1-3 and 5-8 of the
`
`‘346 patent are unpatentable as anticipated by Hathorn and should be canceled.
`
`Dated: September 19, 2014
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Customer No. 112792
`Telephone: (214) 651-5533
`Attorney Docket No.: 47415.430
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`September 19, 2014
`
`DHPN-1001
`
`Baek et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`DHPN-1002
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`DHPN-1003
`
`Peter Weygant, Clusters for High Availability: A Primer of
`
`HP-UX Solutions, 1996 (“Weygant”)
`
`DHPN-1004
`
`Managing MC/ServiceGuard, Hewlett-Packard Company,
`
`1998 (“ServiceGuard”)
`
`DHPN-1005
`
`Hathorn et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,574,950 (“the ‘950 Patent”)
`
`DHPN-1006
`
`Declaration of Dr. Ray Mercer
`
`DHPN-1007
`
`Surugguchi et al., International Publication No. WO 99/38067
`
`(“Mylex”)
`
`DHPN-1008
`
`American National Standard for Information Technology –
`
`Fibre Channel Arbitrated Loop (FC-AL-2), June 28, 1999
`
`(“ANSI”)
`
`DHPN-1009
`
`The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th
`
`Ed., 2000, pp. i-ii and 523. (Not filed)
`
`DHPN-1010
`
`Microsoft Press - Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th Ed.,
`
`1999, pp. i-ii and 372. (Not filed)
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`DHPN-1011
`
`Peter Chen et al., RAID: High-Performance, Reliable
`
`Secondary Storage, submitted to ACM Computing Surveys,
`
`October 29, 1993. (Served at Deposition of Dr. Conte, August
`
`8, 2014; Not filed) (Mistakenly referred to as Exhibit 1009 at
`
`the deposition)
`
`DHPN-1012
`
`Second Declaration of Dr. Ray Mercer
`
`DHPN-1013
`
`The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th
`
`Ed., 2000, pp. i-ii and 726.
`
`DHPN-1014
`
`Microsoft Press - Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th Ed.,
`
`1999, title pages and p.309.
`
`DHPN-1015
`
`William Strunk, Jr. And E.B. White, The Elements of Style, 4th
`
`Ed., 2000, title pages and pp.28-31.
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Case IPR2013-00635 / Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certifies service on
`the Patent Owner a copy of this Reply as detailed below.
`
`Date of service September 19, 2014
`
`Manner of service Electronic Mail:
`matthew.phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com;
`derek.meeker@renaissanceiplaw.com; agiza@raklaw.com
`
`Document served Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response;
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Persons served Matthew C. Phillips
`Derek Meeker
`Renaissance IP Law Group LLP
`9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 560
`Portland, Oregon 97223
`
`Alexander C.D. Giza
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Counsel for Petitioners
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`