IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re patent of: Baek et al.
`
`US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`Issued: December 20, 2005
`
`§ Petition for Inter Partes Review
`§
`§ Attorney Docket No.:
`§
`§ Customer No.:
`
`1 12792
`
`47415.430
`
`Title: APPARATUS FOR
`REDUNDANT INTER—
`CONNECTION
`
`§
`§ Real Parties in Interest: Dell Inc.,
`§ Hewlett—Packard Company, and NetApp,
`§
`Inc.
`
`BETWEEN MULTIPLE
`
`HOSTS AND RAID
`
`§
`
`§
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 223 13—1450
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`Dell Inc., Hewlett—Packard Company, and NetApp, Inc. (“Petitioners”)
`
`petition the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute an inter partes review under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 31 1—3 1 9 of claims 1—9 of United States Patent No. 6,978,346 (“the
`
`‘346 Patent,” Exhibit DHPN—lOOl) that issued on December 20, 2005, to Sung—
`
`Hoon Baek et al., resulting from US. Patent Application No. 09/753,245, filed on
`
`December 29, 2000, and claiming priority to Korean Patent Application No. 2000—
`
`54807 filed on September 19, 2000. According to USPTO records, the ‘346 Patent
`
`is assigned to the Electronics and Telecommunication Research Institute.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`W
`
`l. Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................... l
`
`A. Real Parties—in—lnterest ................................................................................. l
`
`B. Related Matters ............................................................................................. l
`
`C. Lead and Back—up Counsel and Service lnfonnation ................................... 2
`
`ll. Grounds for Standing...........................................................................................2
`
`III. Relief Requested ..................................................................................................2
`
`IV. The Reasons for the Requested Relief.................................................................3
`
`A. Summary of the ‘346 Patent ......................................................................... 3
`
`B. The Prosecution History ............................................................................... 4
`
`V.
`
`Identification of Challenges and Claim Construction ......................................... 5
`
`A. Challenged Claims ........................................................................................ 5
`
`B. Claim Construction ....................................................................................... 5
`
`95 CS
`
`network interface controlling unit”
`1. “network controlling unit,
`and “network interface controller” (claims 1 and 9 and various
`dependent claims) .......................................................................................... 5
`
`2. “the second network interface controlling unit and thefourth
`network controlling unit are usedfor executing afiinction ofthe
`first network interface controlling unit and the third network
`controlling unit when one ofthe first RAID controlling unit and the
`second RAID controlling unit is faulty” (claim 4) ......................................... 6
`
`3. “hub” (claim 5) ........................................................................................ 6
`
`4. “the rest ofthe connection ports being provided as a [hub
`equipment/network switch equipment/switch] connected with the
`numerous host computers” (claims 5, 6, 7) ................................................... 6
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter I’artes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`5. “coupled to” (claims 3 and 5—7) .............................................................. 7
`
`“[X] ofthe at least [17 connection ports is [are] coupled to one
`6.
`ofthe first network interface controlling unit and the third network
`controlling unit” (claims 5—7) ........................................................................ 7
`
`7. “host computers” (claims 1, 4—7 and 9) ................................................... 7
`
`“RAID controlling unit” and “RAID controller” (Claims 1 and 9
`8.
`and various dependent claims) ...................................................................... 7
`
`9.
`
`“RAID” (claims 1 and 9) ......................................................................... 8
`
`. Statutory Grounds for Challenges ................................................................ 8
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1—3, 5, and 8 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) by Peter Weygant, Clusters for High Availability: A
`Primer ofHP— UX Solutions, 1996 (“Weygant”) (DHPN—1003).
`Weygant published in 1996 and qualifies as prior art under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b). ............................................................................................. 8
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 1—3 and 8 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Weygant in view of PCT/US99/01282, filed by Mylex
`Corporation (“Mylex”) (DHPN—1007). Mylex published on July
`29, 1999, and thus qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............... 8
`
`Challenge #3: Claims 4 and 9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Weygant and Mylex, further in View of Managing
`MC/ServiceGuard, Hewlett—Packard Company, (“ServiceGuard”)
`(DHPN—1004). ServiceGuard published in 1998 and is prior art
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................... 8
`
`Challenge #4: Claims 5—7 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Weygant and Mylex, further in View ofAmerican National
`Standardfor Information Technology — Fibre Channel Arbitrated
`Loop (FC—AL-Z) (“ANSI”) (DHPN—1008). ANSI was published
`June 28, 1999, and thus qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`102(b). 9
`
`Challenge #5: Claims 1—3 and 5—8 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §
`102(b) by Hathom et al., US. Pat. No. 5,574,950 (“the ‘950
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`Patent”) ( DHPN—lOOS). The ‘950 Patent issued in 1996 and
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). ............................................ 9
`
`D.
`
`Identification of How the Construed Claims Are Unpatentable .................. 9
`
`1. Challenge #1: Claims 1—3, 5, and 8 are anticipated under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b) over Weygant ...................................................................... 9
`
`2. Challenge #2: Claims 1—3 and 8 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Weygant in View of Mylex ...................................................... 20
`
`3. Challenge #3: Claims 4 and 9 are obvious over Weygant and
`Mylex, further in View of ServiceGuard under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................ 23
`
`4. Challenge #4: Claims 5—7 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Weygant and Mylex further in view of ANSI ..................................... 39
`
`5. Challenge #5: Claims 1—3 and 5—8 are anticipated by the ‘950
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).................................................................. 45
`
`VI. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 60
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Fortes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`I.
`
`Mandatory Notices
`
`A.
`
`Real Parties—in—Interest
`
`The real parties—in—interest are Dell lnc., Hewlett—Packard Company, and
`
`NetApp, Inc.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`As of the filing date of this petition and to the best knowledge of the
`
`petitioner, the ‘346 Patent is involved in the following litigation:
`
`Safe Storage LLC v. StoneFly, Inc.,
`
`l—l3—CV—01 152; Safe Storage LLC v. Int ’l
`
`Business Machines Corp,
`
`l—l3—cv—01 151; Safe Storage LLC v. Emulex
`
`Corporation et al,
`
`l—l3—cv—01 150; Safe Storage LLC v 3PAR Ina, l—l3—cv—01088;
`
`Safe Storage LLC v Oracle America Inc. et al, l-l3-CV-01089; Safe Storage LLC v
`
`ATTO Technology Inc. et al.,
`
`1— l 3—CV—01090; Safe Storage LLC v. VM’ware Inc, 1—
`
`l3—CV—00928; Safe Storage LLC v. Promise Technology Inc, 1— l 3—CV—00927; Safe
`
`Storage LLC v. Nexsan Corporation,
`
`l—l3—cv—0093 1; Safe Storage LLC v.
`
`Overland Storage Inc.,
`
`1— l 3—CV—00932; Safe Storage LLC v. IQSS LLC,
`
`l—l3—cv—
`
`00930; Safe Storage LLC v. Infortrend Corporation,
`
`1— l 3—cv—00929; Safe Storage
`
`LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc.,
`
`l—l3—cv—00926; Safe Storage LLC v. Silicon Graphics
`
`Int ’1 Corp, l—l2—cv—01629; Safe Storage LLC v. Dot Hill Systems Corp, l—l2—CV—
`
`01625; Safe Storage LLC v. Hitachi Data Systems Corp. ,
`
`l—l2—CV—01627; Safe
`
`Storage LLC v. Dell Inc.,
`
`l—l2—cv—01624; Safe Storage LLC v. NetApp Inc.,
`
`l—l2—
`
`cv—01628; Safe Storage LLC v. Hewlett—Packard Company,
`
`l—l2—CV—01626
`
`l
`
`

`

` Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`Each of these proceedings is located in the District Court for Delaware.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back—up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`David L. McCombs
`
`Phone: (214) 651—5533
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Fax: (214) 200—0853
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Dallas, TX 75219
`USPTO Reg. No. 32,271
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Back—up Counsel Phone: (214) 651—5328
`
`Back—up Counsel
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Phone: (214)651—5116
`
`Fax: (214) 200—0853
`Andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 50,271
`
`Back—up Counsel
`Thomas W. Kelton
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`John Russell Emerson
`
`Phone: (972) 739—6923
`Fax: (214) 200—0853
`Thomaskelton.ipr@haynesb00ne.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 54,214
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`
`Fax: (214) 200—0884
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Russ.emerson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Ref. No. 44,098
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`II.
`
`Grounds for Standing
`
`Petitioners certify that the ‘346 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in the petition.
`
`Ill. Relief Requested
`
`Petitioners ask that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`analysis, institute a trial for interpartes review of claims 1—9 of the ‘346 Patent,
`
`and cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`IV. The Reasons for the Requested Relief
`
`The full statement of the reasons for the relief requested is as follows:
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ‘346 Patent
`
`The ‘346 Patent relates to a system with “redundant interconnections
`
`between multiple hosts and a RAID [redundant array of independent discs].” The
`
`system includes two RAID controllers 460 and 461. Each RAID controller has
`
`two network interface controllers (NICs), so RAID controller 460 includes NICs
`
`470 and 471, and RAID controller 461 includes NICs 480, 481. The system also
`
`has two hub/switch devices 440 and 441. Fig. 4 of the ‘346 Patent is illustrative:
`
`FIG. 4
`‘__-__1_‘£5
`______J_‘E‘ ______J_4£3 “wan/123 _______r_‘£“
`______ L420
`IHosr ooumrenT [Hoar oomurenl {Host oomuranl Inner oomursnl IrHOST comma} FHosr acumen} DH PN—l 00 1
`.
`..
`.1 WW
`410'I I_411 II
`432 II
`413 II
`414 I
`I
`415 E
`‘i'
`.
`up.“
`I:
`ll
`:
`!".I.'I'
`II
`‘
`w.I.-I
`1'
`Fi
`4
`IllTEFFACE
`I—I'
`INTERFACE
`II
`INTERFACE
`II
`INTERFACE
`I
`I
`I comma I
`: comm :: mm ':
`I
`CONTROLLER I
`
`l IE! I
`IE! {I
`IIIIEI
`.:
`
`go
`
`. IEI I'
`3;,"_::_‘:_:Hfi‘__4.._! _________‘______ a__J L-“
`_;;:
`
`; r.-.II--m.I PE"
`51...; r--MII”
`
`$55 E3;
`I ‘Ifi Li'zi'a':
`iE
`I mm :=II:=I
`:3!
`I
`LI_________
`_______ -":__-\Zmzf‘i“fii:ffii
`"Eli,_IIIJCI 35I
`
`___________________________
`
`’
`
`Each RAID controller13 connected to each hub/switch device by one of its
`
`NICs. RAID controller 460, on the left, connects to hub/switch 440 by NIC 470
`
`and to hub/switch 441 by NIC 471. Similarly, RAID controller 461, on the right,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`connects hub/switch 441 by NIC 481 and to hub/switch 440 by NIC 480.
`
`This structure provides a “communication passage between two RAID
`
`controllers.” DHPN— 1 001, 3:64—65. For instance, the RAID controller 460, on the
`
`left, can send information to the RAID controller 461, on the right, via NIC 471,
`
`switch/hub 441, and NIC 481 (at RAID controller 461). DHPN—IOOI, 3:66 — 4:12.
`
`In the same way, communication can also flow from NIC 481 to NIC 471. DHPN—
`
`1001, 4:6—9. Additionally, RAID controller 460, on the left, can send information
`
`to RAID controller 461, on the right, via NIC 470, hub/switch 440, and NIC 480.
`
`DHPN—IOO 1 , 4:9—12. 1n the same way, communication can also flow from NIC
`
`480 to NIC 470. DHPN— 1 00 1 , 4:2—6.
`
`This system of redundant RAID controllers and NICs purports to provide a
`
`“fault tolerant function.” DHPN—IOOI, 3:63—66. The specification describes that a
`
`RAID controller “having [an] error occurrence is removed from the network.”
`
`Then a NIC from other RAID controller “takes over a function” of a NIC on the
`
`RAID controller with the error. DHPN—1001, 4:19—25.
`
`B.
`
`The Prosecution History
`
`The ‘346 Patent’s prosecution included two rejections and two amendments.
`
`The application of the ‘346 Patent was filed with claims that eventually issued as
`
`claims 1—8 after amendment. DHPN—1002, pp.123—125. The Examiner initially
`
`rejected the claims over US 5,812,754 (hereinafter, “Lui”). DHPN—1002, pp.65—
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Fortes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`69.
`
`In response, the Applicant amended claim I and added a claim that would
`
`eventually issue as claim 9. DHPN—IOOZ, p.49. The amendment to claim I is not
`
`discussed further herein because it was substantially undone in the Applicant's next
`
`response. The Examiner issued a Final Office Action rejecting all claims over Lui.
`
`In response, the Applicant amended claims I and 9 and argued that Lui does not
`
`teach “two network interface controlling units included in each RAID controller.”
`
`DHPN—1002, p.26. Applicant also argued that Lui does not teach “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.” DHPN—1002, pp.26—27. The Examiner
`
`allowed the claims without providing reasons for allowance. DHPN—1002, pp.8—
`
`II.
`
`V.
`
`Identification 01' Challenges and Claim Construction
`
`A.
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1—9 of the ‘346 Patent are challenged in this petition.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`This petition analyzes the claims consistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b):
`
`1.
`
`“network controlling unit,” “network interface controlling unit” and “network
`interface controller” (claims I and 9 and various dependent claims)
`
`The terms “network controlling unit,
`
`network interface controlling unit, ”
`
`31 £6
`
`

`

`Petition for inter l’artes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`and “network interface controller” should be construed to be the same, namely, as
`
`any component allowing a device to communicate over a network (e.g., Fibre
`
`Channel, ATM, or other network). DHPN—1006 at pp.10—12.
`
`2.
`
`“the second network interface controlling unit and the fourth network
`controlling unit are usedfor executing afunction ofthefirst network interface
`controlling unit and the third network controlling unit when one ofthefirst
`RAID controlling unit and the second RAID controlling unit is faulty” (Claim
`4)
`
`The above—recited limitation should be construed as “if either one of the first
`
`or second RAID controlling unit has an occurrence of an error, the apparatus uses a
`
`network controlling unit of the RAID controlling unit not having the error
`
`occurrence.” DHPN—1006 at pp.12—l3.
`
`3.
`
`“hub” (claim 5)
`
`The term “hub” should be construed as “hub or switch” as defined in the
`
`specification. DHPN—1006 at pp.l6—l7.
`
`4.
`
`“the rest ofthe connection ports being provided as a [hub equipment/network
`switch equipment/switch] connected with the numerous host computers”
`(claims 5, 6, 7)
`
`First, as a matter of grammar, the phrase “connected with...” modifies the
`
`“hub equipment, network switch equipment, or switch” and does not modify the
`
`“connection ports,” because the phrase should modify the immediately preceding
`
`noun. This construction is consistent with Figs. 4, 5, and 6 showing a hub or
`
`switch connected with the host computers. DHPN—1006 at p.16. Second, the
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Fortes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`phrase, “the rest of...” is not used in the specification to show a different meaning.
`
`DHPN—1006 at p.16. Third, the above—recited words do not logically exclude that
`
`the other ports, coupled to the network controlling units, are also provided as the
`
`hub equipment, network switch equipment, or switch.
`
`5.
`
`“coupled to” (claims 3 and 5—7)
`
`The term “coupled to” should be construed to be broader than the phrase
`
`“connected to.” For example if entity A is coupled to entity B, then entity A is
`
`connected, directly or indirectly, in order to allow the transfer of signals between
`
`entities A and B. DHPN—1006 at pp. 1 7— l 8.
`
`6.
`
`“[X] ofthe at least [17 connection ports is [are] coupled to one ofthefirst
`network interface controlling unit and the third network controlling unit”
`(claims 5—7)
`
`The term “[X] of the at least [Y] connection ports is [are] coupled to one of
`
`the first network interface controlling unit and the third network controlling unit”
`
`should be construed as “a hub (or switch) that has at least [Y] ports where at least
`
`[X] of the ports are connected directly or indirectly with the first network interface
`
`controlling unit or the third network controlling unit.” DHPN—1006 at pp.l3—l6.
`
`7.
`
`“host computers” (claims 1, 4—7 and 9)
`
`The term “host computers” should be construed as “network connected
`
`computers.” DHPN—1006 at pp. 1 8—19.
`
`8.
`
`“RAID controlling unit” and “RAID controller” (claims 1 and 9 and various
`dependent claims)
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter I’artes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`The terms “RAID controlling unit” and “RAID controller” should be
`
`construed as “a functional component including hardware that may be controlled
`
`by computer code, the functional component providing control to implement RAID
`
`storage in an array of storage drives.” DHPN—1006 at pp.l9—2 l.
`
`9.
`
`“RAID” (claims 1 and 9)
`
`The term “RAID” should be construed as “at least a redundant array of
`
`independent disks.” DHPN—1006 at pp.2l—23. A RAID may include RAID
`
`controllers. DHPN—1006 at p.21 .
`
`C.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1—3, 5, and 8 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
`
`Peter Weygant, Clusters for High Availability: A Primer ofHP— UX Solutions, 1996
`
`(“Weygant”) (DHPN—1003). Weygant published in 1996 and qualifies as prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 1—3 and 8 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Weygant in view of PCT/US99/01282, filed by Mylex Corporation (“Mylex”)
`
`(DHPN—1007). Mylex published on July 29, 1999, and thus qualifies as prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Challenge #3: Claims 4 and 9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Weygant
`
`and Mylex, further in view of Managing MC/ServiceGuar-d, Hewlett—Packard
`
`Company, (“ServiceGuard”) (DHPN—1004). ServiceGuard published in 1998 and
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Challenge #4: Claims 5—7 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) over Weygant and
`
`Mylex, fLu‘ther in View ofAmerican National Standardfor Information Technology
`
`— Fibre Channel Arbitrared Loop (FC—AL-2) (“ANSI”) (DHPN—1008). ANSI was
`
`published June 28, 1999, and thus qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Challenge #5: Claims l—3 and 5—8 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
`
`Hathorn et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,574,950 (“the ‘950 Patent”) ( DHPN—1005). The
`
`‘950 Patent issued in 1996 and qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`D.
`
`Identification of How the Construed Claims Are Unpatentable
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1—3, 5, and 8 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`1.
`§ 102(b) over Weygant
`
`Claims 1—3, 5, and 8 of the ‘346 Patent are anticipated by Weygant under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b). Weygant discloses a RAID system having redundant RAID
`
`controllers and network interface controllers to provide fault tolerance
`
`functionality. For example, in Fig. 4.1 (below), Weygant shows two RAID
`
`controllers, each with two LAN cards. DHPN—1003 at p.131; DHPN—1006 at p.23.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`F1rst RAID
`
`DHPN—l003, FIG. 4.]
`(annotated)
`
`'
`
`Second RAID
`
`controlling unit
`
`Third and fourth
`
`LAN cards (network
`
`controlling units) First and second LAN
`
`cards (network
`controlling units)
`
`Weygant also discloses hubs that connect the RAID units with numerous
`
`computers. For example, in Fig 4.1, Weygant discloses two hubs that couple the
`
`PC clients to the RAID controlling units. DHPN—1006 at p.24; DHPN—1003, Fig.
`
`4.1. Further, Fig. 4.1 of Weygant shows the same topology as in Fig. 4 of the ‘346
`
`Patent. Specifically, at node I, one LAN card is connected to the hub on the left,
`
`and the other LAN card is connected to the hub on the right. Also, in node 2, one
`
`LAN card is connected to the hub on the left, and the other LAN card is connected
`
`to the hub on the right. The topology of Fig. 4.1 provides for the same
`
`“communication passages” described in the ‘346 Patent’s specification (‘346
`
`Patent, 3:62 — 4:12. DHPN—1006 at p.24. Weygant also discloses that a LAN card
`
`in one RAID controlling unit exchanges information (such as heartbeat messages)
`
`with a LAN card in a second RAID controlling unit. See DHPN—1003 at p.139—140.
`
`Thus, Weygant discloses every element of claim 1, as well as dependent
`
`claims 2, 3, 5 and 8, as shown in detail below:
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Fortes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1.0] An apparatusfor a redundant interconnection between multiple hosts and u
`RAID, comprising:
`
`Weygant discloses this feature because it discloses a system having multiple
`
`“PC clients” connected redundantly to a set of mirrored disks in a RAID
`
`configuration. DHPN—1003, Fig 4.1; DHPN—1006 at pp.26—28. Nodes l and 2
`
`share a set of mirrored disks arranged in a “RAID level 1” configuration using a
`
`“Logical Volume Manager and the separate MirrorDisk/UX subsystem.” DHPN—
`
`1003 at p.67; DHPN—1006 at p.27. The PC clients have multiple connections to the
`
`RAID through redundant hubs. DHPN—1006 at p.26—27,
`
`DHPN—l003, FIG.
`
`4.] (annotated)
`
`in.--.;
`
`Path of
`Data Access
`
`_
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`Redundant
`
`interconnections
`
`Multiple hosts
`
`Thus, the system that has redundant interconnections between multiple PC
`
`clients and a set of mirrored disks in a RAID configuration discloses “an apparatus
`
`for a redundant interconnection between multiple hosts and a RAID.”
`
`[1.1] ufirst RAID controlling units and a second RAID controlling unitfor
`processing a requirement ofnumerous host computers
`
`Weygant discloses this limitation because it teaches a first node having
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for inter Fortes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`software that implements a “RAID level 1” configuration and a second node
`
`having software that implements a “RAID level 1” configuration. DHPN—1003 at
`
`p.67, 1 l l, 172; DHPN—1006 at pp.28—30. Further, each node processes a
`
`requirement of numerous “PC clients” by providing a “facility for accessing file
`
`systems remotely” so that “writers and editors do not lose access” should a failure
`
`occur. DHPN—1003 at p.128; DHPN—1006 at pp.29—30. Thus, the two nodes that
`
`implement a RAID to provide a facility so that numerous clients can access remote
`
`file systems discloses “a first RAID controlling units and a second RAID
`
`controlling unit for processing a requirement of numerous host computers.”
`
`[1.2] thefirst RAID controlling unit including a first network controlling unit
`and a second network controlling unit
`
`Weygant discloses this limitation because it teaches that each node contains
`
`“two LAN cards,” which transmit “file server requests from clients and also the
`
`cluster’s own heartbeat messages” over a local area network. DHPN—1003 at p.131;
`
`DHPN—1006 at pp.30—3 1. Thus, the first node including two LAN cards that
`
`communicate over a network discloses “the first RAID controlling unit including a
`
`first network controlling unit and a second network controlling unit.”
`
`[1.3] and the second RAID controlling unit including a third network controlling
`unit and afourth network controlling unit
`
`Weygant discloses this limitation because it teaches each node contains “two
`
`LAN cards,” which transmit “file server requests from clients and also the cluster’s
`
`l2
`
`

`

`Petition for inter Fortes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`own heartbeat messages” over a local area network. DHPN—1003 at p.131; DHPN—
`
`1006 at pp.3 l —32. Thus, the second node including two LAN cards that
`
`communicate over a network discloses “the second RAID controlling unit
`
`including a third network controlling unit and a fourth network controlling unit.”
`
`[1.4] a plurality of connection unitsfor connecting thefirst RAID controlling
`units and the second RAID controlling unit to the numerous host computers
`
`Weygant discloses this limitation because it teaches multiple hubs that
`
`provide communication paths between the nodes (RAID controlling units) and the
`
`PC clients (host computers). DHPN—1006 at pp.32—33. Thus, the multiple hubs
`
`that connect the first and second nodes (the RAID controlling units) to the PC
`
`clients (host computers) disclose “a plurality of connection units for connecting the
`
`first RAID controlling units and the second RAID controlling unit to the numerous
`
`host computers.”
`
`[1.5] wherein thefirst RAID controlling unit and the second RAID controlling
`unit directly exchange information with the numerous host computers
`through the plurality ofconnecting units
`
`Weygant discloses this limitation because it teaches that the first node and
`
`the second node communicate with the PC clients through the hubs to process file
`
`system requests for writing and editing. DHPN—1003 at p.128; DHPN—1006 at
`
`pp.33—35. Thus, the first node (a RAID controlling unit) and the second node (a
`
`RAID controlling unit) that exchange information with the PC clients through the
`
`hubs discloses “the first RAID controlling unit and the second RAID controlling
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for inter Fortes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`unit directly exchange information with the numerous host computers through the
`
`plurality of connecting units.”
`
`[1.6] and thefirst network controlling unit exchanges information with the
`fourth network controlling unit
`
`Weygant discloses this limitation because it teaches that the nodes (RAID
`
`controlling units) exchange “heartbeat messages” Via their LAN cards (network
`
`controlling units). DHPN—1003 at p.66, 131; DHPN—1006 at pp.35—38. Weygant
`
`also teaches an active LAN card (network controlling unit) communicates with an
`
`active LAN card of another node (RAID controlling unit). While this concept is
`
`shown in Figs. 2.10 and 2.12, it also applies to Figs. 4.1—4.4. DHPN—1006 at p.37.
`
`
`
`
`;
`.3
`
`
`
`First network
`,
`,
`
`controllmg umt
`- -+--
`
`DHPN—1003, FIG. 2.10
`(annotated)
`
`Fourth network
`
`controlling unit
`
`Figure 2.10 Emeline! LAMS in a Grouped Subner
`
`The “LAN interfaces” in the figures of Weygant include the LAN cards.
`
`DHPN—1006 at pp.25—26. Thus, the first LAN card that sends heartbeat messages
`
`to the fourth LAN card (and the fourth LAN card that sends heartbeat messages to
`
`the first LAN card) discloses “the first network controlling unit exchanges
`
`information with the fth network controlling unit.”
`
`[1.7] and the second network controlling unit exchanges information with the
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Fortes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`third network controlling unit.
`
`Weygant discloses this limitation because it teaches that the nodes (RAID
`
`controlling units) exchange “heartbeat messages” via their LAN cards (network
`
`controlling units). DHPN—1006 at pp.38—40; DHPN—1003 at p.131.
`
`Also, Weygant teaches an active LAN card (network controlling unit)
`
`communicates with an active LAN card of another node (RAID controlling unit).
`
`This concept is shown in Figs. 2.10 and 2.12 and applies to the examples of Figs.
`
`4.1—4.4. DHPN—1006 at p.39.
`
`Second network 13.1;
`controlling unit
`
`.,
`mom! I
`
`
`DHPN—l003, FIG. 2.12
`(annotated)
`
`
`. _l._ 1“---
`
`Third network
`
`controlling unit
`
`Figure 2.12 Grouped Ne! Fortomng LAN Cable Failure
`
`The first, second, third, and fourth designations in the annotations above are
`
`exemplary, as either LAN card in node 1 can be considered first or second and any
`
`LAN card in node 2 can be considered third or fourth. DHPN—1006 at p.40.
`
`Thus, the second LAN card that sends heartbeat messages to the third LAN
`
`card (and the third LAN card that sends heartbeat messages to the second LAN
`
`card) discloses “the second network controlling unit exchanges information with
`
`the third network controlling unit.”
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Fortes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`Claim 2
`
`[2.1] The apparatus as recited in claim I, wherein said respective RAID
`controlling units are connected to the plurality of individual connecting
`units.
`
`As discussed above, Weygant discloses the apparatus of claim I. Weygant
`
`further discloses “said respective RAID controlling units are connected to the
`
`plurality of individual connecting units” because it teaches that node I and node 2
`
`(the first and second RAID controlling units) are connected to two hubs. DHPN—
`
`1006 at pp.40—42. Thus, the first node and second node (the first and second RAID
`
`controlling units) that are connected to two hubs disclose “said respective RAID
`
`controlling units are connected to the plurality of individual connecting units.”
`
`Claim 3
`
`[3.1] The apparatus as recited in claim 2, wherein thefirst network interface
`controlling unit is coupled to the connecting unit ofone side and the second
`network interface controlling unit is coupled to the connecting unit of
`another side.
`
`As discussed above, Weygant discloses the apparatus of claim 2. Weygant
`
`further discloses the limitation of [3.1] because it teaches, in Fig. 4.1, that the LAN
`
`card on the left of node l(first network controlling unit) is connected to the hub on
`
`the left side, and the LAN card on the right of node I (second network controlling
`
`unit) is connected to the hub on the right side. DHPN—1006 at pp.42—43.
`
`l6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
` Right [4&0]le pard
`
`DHPN—1003, FIG.
`
`4.1 (annotated)
`
`Data A C C23 3
`
`PC Chem _/\ Hub on right
`
`Hub on left
`
`°°_":‘°°"°"‘ —
`
`side
`
`side
`
`E Q. A __
`
`Thus, the left LAN card connected to the hub 0n the left and the right LAN
`
`card connect to the hub 0n the right, discloses “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.”
`
`
`Claim 5
`
`[5.1] The apparatus as recited in claim I, wherein said pluralig) ofconnecting
`units have at least three connection ports,
`
`As discussed above, Weygant discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Weygant
`
`discloses this limitation because it teaches each hub (a connecting unit) having at
`
`least four ports—one port in communication with node 1, one port in
`
`communication with node 2, one port to the other hub, and one port to the PC
`
`client connections. DHPN—1006 at pp.44—45. Since each hub has at least four
`
`ports, the total number of ports in the plurality of connecting units is at least eight.
`
`DHPN—1006 at p.44. Thus, the ports of Weygant’s hubs disclose “wherein said
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for inter Fortes Review of US. Patent No. 6 978 346
`
`plurality of connecting units have at least three connection ports,” as recited in the
`
`claims.
`
`[5.2] two ofthe at least three connection ports is coupled to one ofthefirst
`network interface controlling unit and the third network controlling unit
`
`Weygant discloses this feature. Specifically, Weygant’s Fig. 4.1 shows a
`
`connection port in the hub on the left coupled to a first LAN card at node 1 and a
`
`connection port at the hub on the right coupled to a third LAN card at node 2.
`
`Pathaf
`
`-
`
`
`controlling unit
`
`
`Connection port coupled
`to first network
`
`Connection port coupled to
`third network controlling
`”mt
`DHPN—1003, FIG.
`4.] (annotated)
`
`Thus, the hub port coupled to the LAN card in node 1 and the hub port
`
`coupled to the LAN card in node 2 discloses “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.” DHPN—1006 at pp.44—47.
`
`[5.3] and the rest ofthe connection ports being provided as a hub equipment
`connected with the numerous host computers.
`
`Weygant discloses this limitation. Weygant at Fig. 4.1 shows ports as hub
`
`equipment, where t