throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`In re patent of: Baek et al.
`
`§
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`§
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`
`50907.2
`
`Issued: December 20, 2005
`
`§
`
`Customer No.:
`
`112792
`
` APPARATUS FOR
`
`§
`
`Real Parties in Interest:
`
`REDUNDANT INTER-
`
`§
`
`Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., and
`
`CONNECTION BETWEEN
`
`§
`
`NetApp, Inc.
`
`MULTIPLE HOSTS AND RAID
`
`§
`
`
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. M. Ray Mercer
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`I, Dr. M. Ray Mercer, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Dell Inc., Hewlett-
`
`Packard Co., and NetApp, Inc. in the matter of the Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No 6,978,346 (“the ‘346 Patent”) to Baek et al.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter. My
`
`R-347138_3
`
`1
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 1 of 179
`
`

`

`compensation in no way depends upon the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`(1) The ‘346 patent, DHPN-1001;
`
`(2) The prosecution history of the ‘346 patent, DHPN-1002;
`
`(3) TruCluster Server Hardware Configuration, April 2000 (“TruCluster”),
`
`DHPN-1003;
`
`(4)
`
`Sicola et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,601,187 (“the ‘187 patent”), DHPN-1004; and
`
`(5) Guidelines for OpenVMS Cluster Configurations, January 1999
`
`(“OpenVMS”), DHPN-1005.
`
`4.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`(1) The documents listed above,
`
`(2) The relevant legal standards, including the standard for obviousness
`
`provided in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) and any
`
`additional authoritative documents as cited in the body of this declaration, and
`
`(3) My knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area as described
`
`below.
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications and Professional Experience
`
`5. My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of
`
`which is attached as Appendix 1. As set forth in my curriculum vitae, I have over
`
`45 years of dual industrial and academic experience in Electrical Engineering and
`
`R-347138_3
`
`2
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 2 of 179
`
`

`

`Computer Engineering.
`
`6.
`
`I received a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Texas Tech
`
`University in 1968. From 1968 to 1973, I was a Research/Development Engineer
`
`at General Telephone and Electronics Sylvania in Mountain View, California, and
`
`I received an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University in 1971.
`
`From 1973 to 1977, I was a Member of Technical Staff at Hewlett-Packard’s Santa
`
`Clara Division and subsequently at Hewlett-Packard Laboratories in Palo Alto,
`
`California. From 1977 to 1980, I was a Lecturer in the Division of Mathematics,
`
`Statistics, and Computer Science at the University of Texas at San Antonio, and I
`
`received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin
`
`in 1980. From 1980 to 1983, I was a Member of Technical Staff at Bell
`
`Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey.
`
`7.
`
`In 1983, I was appointed Assistant Professor of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. In 1987, I was
`
`promoted to Associate Professor and in 1991, Professor. In 1995, I was appointed
`
`Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Leader of the Computer
`
`Engineering Group and Holder of the Computer Engineering Chair at Texas A&M
`
`University in College Station, Texas. My teaching, my research, my technical
`
`publications, and my supervision of graduate students during this period included
`
`the areas of computer clusters, redundant connections, and networking – key issues
`
`R-347138_3
`
`3
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 3 of 179
`
`

`

`in this proceeding.
`
`8.
`
`In September 2005, I retired, and the Regents of the Texas A&M
`
`University System appointed me as Professor Emeritus of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at Texas A&M University.
`
`9.
`
`Since 1984, I have been an independent consultant and provided
`
`private consultation and advice in Electrical and Computer Engineering to
`
`numerous entities including IBM, Inc., Rockwell International, Motorola
`
`Semiconductor, AT&T, Inc. and SigmaTel. I also have been hired by numerous
`
`law firms to provide them and their clients with expert consultation and expert
`
`testimony – often in the areas of patent infringement litigation related to Electrical
`
`and Computer Engineering.
`
`10.
`
`I was actively involved in numerous professional organizations
`
`including the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”), and I was
`
`recognized as an IEEE Fellow in 1994. I was the Program Chairman for the 1989
`
`International Test Conference, which is an IEEE-sponsored annual conference with
`
`(at that time) more than one thousand attendees and over one hundred presented
`
`papers. I won the Best Paper Award at the 1982 International Test Conference. I
`
`also won a Best Paper Award at the 1991 Design Automation Conference, an
`
`annual conference with (at that time) more than ten thousand attendees and five
`
`hundred submitted papers, many of which related to the design of integrated circuit
`
`R-347138_3
`
`4
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 4 of 179
`
`

`

`based systems. The subject of this paper involved trade-offs between power
`
`consumption and processing speed in integrated circuits. I also won a Best Paper
`
`Award at the 1999 VLSI Test Symposium. I am the inventor on United States
`
`patents that relate to the design of integrated circuits. I was selected as a National
`
`Science Foundation Presidential Young Investigator in 1986.
`
`11.
`
`I am familiar with the knowledge and capabilities one of ordinary skill
`
`in the networking and computing cluster arts in the period around 2000.
`
`Specifically, my work with students, undergraduates as well as masters and Ph.D.
`
`candidates, with colleagues in academia, and with engineers practicing in industry
`
`allowed me to become personally familiar with the level of skill of individuals and
`
`the general state of the art. Unless otherwise stated, my testimony below refers to
`
`the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the networking and computing cluster
`
`arts in the period around 2000 – the period that includes the filing date of the ‘346
`
`patent.
`
`II. Relevant Legal Standards
`
`12.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`claims of the ‘346 patent would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the prior art. It is my
`
`understanding that a claimed invention is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
`
`differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`R-347138_3
`
`5
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 5 of 179
`
`

`

`as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. I also
`
`understand that the obviousness analysis takes into account factual inquiries
`
`including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`and the differences between the prior art and the claimed subject matter.
`
`13.
`
`It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the following:
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results; use of a known technique to improve a similar device (method, or product)
`
`in the same way; applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success; and some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior
`
`art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`III. Background Of ‘346 patent
`
`14. The ‘346 Patent relates to a system having “redundant
`
`interconnections between multiple hosts and a RAID.” Fig. 4 of the ‘346 patent is
`
`R-347138_3
`
`6
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 6 of 179
`
`

`

`especially illustrative and is reproduced below for reference:
`
` ‘346 patent, Fig. 4
`
`
`
`15. The storage system includes two RAID controllers—460 and 461.
`
`Each RAID controller 460, 461 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 or switch” devices—440
`
`and 441. Each RAID controller is connected to each “hub or switch” device by
`
`one of its NICs. RAID controller 460, on the left, is connected to “hub or switch”
`
`440 by NIC 470 and to “hub or switch” 441 by NIC 471. Similarly, RAID
`
`controller 461, on the right, is connected to “hub or switch” 441 by NIC 481 and to
`
`“hub or switch” 440 by NIC 480.
`
`R-347138_3
`
`7
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 7 of 179
`
`

`

`16. The structure described above provides for a “communication passage
`
`between two RAID controllers.” ‘346 Patent, 3:64-65. For instance, a
`
`communication passage exists between the RAID controller 460, on the left, and
`
`the RAID controller 461, on the right, via NIC 471, switch/hub 441, and NIC 481
`
`(at RAID controller 461). ‘346 Patent, 3:66 – 4:2. In the same way, a
`
`communication passage exists between NIC 481 and NIC 471. ‘346 Patent, 3:64 –
`
`4:12. Also, a communication passage exists between RAID controller 460, on the
`
`left, and RAID controller 461, on the right, via NIC 470, “hub or switch” 440, and
`
`NIC 480. Id. In the same way, a communication passage exists between NIC 480
`
`and NIC 470. Id.
`
`17. The ‘346 patent fails to provide any examples regarding the types of
`
`information that maybe exchanged between the NICs nor any examples regarding
`
`how communication paths between the NICs might be used.
`
`18. The system attempts to provide a “fault tolerant function.” ‘346
`
`Patent, 3:63-66. 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. ‘346 Patent, 4:19-25. However, such
`
`limitation is not reflected in every claim of the ‘346 patent.
`
`19. Claim 1 provides a basic overview of the teachings of the ‘346 patent:
`
`1. An apparatus for a redundant interconnection between multiple
`
`R-347138_3
`
`8
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 8 of 179
`
`

`

`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 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.
`
`
`IV. Claim Construction
`
`20.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ‘346
`
`patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`the claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification. It is my further understanding that claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and accustomed meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, unless the inventor, as a lexicographer, has set forth a special meaning
`
`R-347138_3
`
`9
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 9 of 179
`
`

`

`for a term.
`
`21.
`
`In order to construe the claims, I have reviewed the entirety of the
`
`‘346 patent, as well as its prosecution history.
`
`network controlling unit, network interface controlling unit
`22. These terms appear in claim 1 and in various dependent claims. The
`
`specification of the ‘346 patent does not use the term network controlling unit or
`
`network interface controlling unit. The terms appear to rely on disclosure in the
`
`specification regarding “network interface controllers” for enablement and
`
`description. The following passage is an example.
`
`Network interface controllers, 410 to 415, contained into the host
`computers, 400 to 405, and the network interface controllers 470, 471,
`480, 481 of the RAID controllers 460, 461 are connected with one
`another by two networks through two hubs 440, 441, and according to
`a sort of the networks, the network interface controller becomes a
`fibre channel controller, an ATM controller and an InfiniBand
`controller etc. ‘346 Patent, 3:31-37.
`Furthermore, it appears that the claims use the two terms interchangeably. For
`
`instance, claim 1 uses network controlling unit, while claim 4 (depending from
`
`claim 1) uses the term network interface controlling unit.
`
`23.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the broadest reasonable interpretation of network controlling unit and
`
`network interface controlling unit in view of the specification to be any
`
`R-347138_3
`
`10
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 10 of 179
`
`

`

`component allowing a device to communicate over a network (e.g., Fibre Channel,
`
`ATM, or other networks). Furthermore, because of the way the two terms are used
`
`interchangeably within the claims, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that both terms are intended to mean the same thing.
`
`Network interface controller
`24. The specification of the ‘346 patent uses the term network interface
`
`controller throughout, but does not seek to define or limit the term. See, e.g., ‘346
`
`Patent, 3:31-37. Furthermore, it appears that claim 9 uses network interface
`
`controller interchangeably with network controlling unit. See, e.g., ‘346 Patent,
`
`6:31 and 53 (using first network controlling unit to refer back to first network
`
`interface controller).
`
`25.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the broadest reasonable interpretation of network interface controller
`
`in view of the specification to refer to any component allowing a device to
`
`communicate over a network (e.g., Fibre Channel, ATM, or other network).
`
`Specifically, with no further direction from the specification or the claims, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would read the term network interface controller to be
`
`the same as network controlling unit and network interface controlling unit
`
`(immediately above).
`
`the second network interface controlling unit and the fourth network
`controlling unit are used for executing a function of the first network
`
`R-347138_3
`
`11
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 11 of 179
`
`

`

`interface controlling unit and the third network controlling unit when
`one of the first RAID controlling unit and the second RAID
`controlling unit is faulty
`26. A literal interpretation of this element from claim 4 is not supported
`
`by the specification. For instance, there is no described embodiment in which both
`
`the second and fourth network controlling units execute a function of both the first
`
`and third network controlling units when a single RAID controller fails.
`
`Furthermore, a literal reading of this element does not make sense when the
`
`context of claim 1 is taken into account. Specifically, the first and second network
`
`controlling units are both on one RAID controller, and the third and fourth network
`
`controlling units are both on another RAID controller, according to claim 1. Thus,
`
`if the first RAID controller is faulty, the second network controlling unit would not
`
`be used, and if the second RAID controller is faulty, the fourth network controlling
`
`unit would not be used. With these concerns in mind, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would avoid a literal reading of this element.
`
`27.
`
`Instead, the specification of the ‘346 patent states:
`
`If any one out of two RAID controllers 460, 461 has an occurrence of
`an error, the RAID controller having the error occurrence is removed
`from the network, and a second network interface controller of an
`opposite RAID controller not having the error occurrence takes over a
`function of a first network interface controller of the RAID controller
`having the error occurrence. ‘346 Patent, 4:19-24.
`28.
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art, when
`
`R-347138_3
`
`12
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 12 of 179
`
`

`

`grappling with these difficult issues with the literal wording, would understand the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the above-recited term to be “if either one of
`
`the first RAID controlling unit 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.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`favor this interpretation because it is consistent with the specification at column 4,
`
`lines 19-24 of the ‘346 patent.
`
`[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
`In the above-recited feature of claims 5, 6, and 7, X (two or four) is
`29.
`
`the subject, so that X connection ports are coupled as claimed. The term one is the
`
`object of the preposition of the term coupled to, so that one of the set (where the
`
`set is defined as the first network interface controlling unit and the third network
`
`controlling unit) is referred to by coupled to. Therefore, a literal and grammatical
`
`reading of the above-quoted portion of claims 5, 6, and 7 means that X connecting
`
`ports must be coupled to the first network controlling unit or X connecting ports
`
`must be coupled to the third network controlling unit, where either condition would
`
`satisfy the claim limitation. (Also, see my construction of coupled to herein
`
`below.) However, upon reading the specification at 3:43-47, I believe that the
`
`patentee probably intended to say “a connection port is coupled to the first network
`
`R-347138_3
`
`13
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 13 of 179
`
`

`

`controlling unit, and another connection port is coupled to the third network
`
`controlling unit,” in the case of claims 5 and 6 (e.g., port 423 coupled to NIC 470
`
`and port 422 coupled to NIC 480 of Fig. 4). This is a non-literal reading of the
`
`claim feature because a literal reading is not consistent with a grammatically
`
`correct reading of the limitation. In the case of claim 7, which recites four instead
`
`of two, the patentee probably intended to say “out of a total of four connection
`
`ports, some of those four connection ports are coupled to the first network
`
`controlling unit, and the others of the four connection ports are coupled to the third
`
`network controlling unit.” However, I do not think that the patent supports such
`
`features, as the ‘346 specification refers to the items 420-424 and 430-434 as
`
`“ports,” yet there is no disclosed embodiment where more than one of the ports is
`
`shown with multiple lines to any one of the NICs in Fig. 4.
`
`30.
`
`In the case of claims 5-7, this is evidence that the term coupled to is
`
`broader than “connected to” and, in the context of a hub or switch, coupled to
`
`means that any connection port in a hub or a switch is connected to any other port
`
`in a hub or a switch by virtue of the internal structure of the hub or switch. Such a
`
`reading of coupled to would mean that any one of ports 420-424 is coupled to NIC
`
`470 and NIC 480, and any port 430-434 is coupled to NIC 481 and NIC 471 in Fig.
`
`4 directly or indirectly by virtue of the structure of the switch or hub. Because of
`
`the above-described tension between the literal, grammatical reading of the phrases
`
`R-347138_3
`
`14
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 14 of 179
`
`

`

`and the disclosure in the specification, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, when grappling with these errors in the literal wording of each
`
`limitation, if motivated to preserve the validity of a claim, would interpret the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of [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 to include both a scenario where [X] connection ports are
`
`coupled to the same network controlling unit and the scenario where some of the
`
`[X] connection ports are coupled to one network interface controlling unit and
`
`others of the [X] connection ports are coupled to the other network interface
`
`controlling unit: “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.”
`
`the rest of the connection ports being provided as a [hub equipment,
`network switch equipment, switch] connected with the numerous host
`computers
`In the above-recited feature of claims 5, 6, and 7, connected with
`31.
`
`modifies hub equipment, network switch equipment, or switch and does not
`
`modify the connection ports simply as a matter of grammar because connected
`
`with immediately follows hub equipment, network switch equipment, and switch.
`
`The passage in the ‘346 specification at 3:48-50 uses the term “the rest,” but it
`
`does not address hub equipment, network switch equipment, or switch and is,
`
`R-347138_3
`
`15
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 15 of 179
`
`

`

`thus, less illuminating than the grammatical structure of the claim itself. I note that
`
`the construction I propose below is not inconsistent with the specification in any
`
`event. It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
`
`that such construction is consistent with Figs. 4, 5, and 6 of the ‘346 patent
`
`showing a hub or switch connected with the host computers. Furthermore, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the term the rest does not
`
`exclude that the other ports, coupled to the network controlling units, are also
`
`provided as part of the hub equipment, network switch equipment, or switch.
`
`hub
`32. The term hub encompasses both hubs and switches because the ‘346
`
`patent defines the term as such.
`
`Herewith, the hubs 440, 441 are provided to connect a system
`connected to these hubs by one network … and it can be as a hub or a
`switch. Hereinafter, they are named a "hub" altogether. ‘346
`Patent, 3: 13-18 (emphasis added).
`Thus, in order to comport with the definition in the specification, the term hub
`
`should be construed as “hub or switch” in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`coupled to
`33. This phrase appears only in claims 3, 5, 6, and 7. It does not appear in
`
`the specification.
`
`34. The phrase “connected to” appears in claims 2 and 8. As one
`
`example, claim 8 contains the phrase “wherein the first network interface
`
`R-347138_3
`
`16
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 16 of 179
`
`

`

`controlling unit of the first RAID controlling unit being connected to a first
`
`connecting unit.” (emphasis added)
`
`35.
`
`In addition, “connected to” appears in the specification in numerous
`
`places. Three examples of the use of this phrase in the specification are cited
`
`below:
`
`Meanwhile, two network interface controllers 470, 471 of the first
`RAID controller 460 are respectively connected to two different hub
`ports 423, 432, and two network interface controllers 480, 481 of the
`second RAID controller 461 are respectively connected to two
`different hub ports 422, 433. The rest ports 420, 421, 424, 430, 431,
`434 of the hubs 440, 441 are connected to the host computers 400 to
`405. ‘346 Patent, 3: 43-49 (emphasis added).
`36.
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the broadest reasonable interpretation of “coupled to” 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 enable the transfer of
`
`signals between entities A and B. See also my explanation of 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, given above.
`
`host computers
`37. This term appears in both independent claims 1 and 9 and appears
`
`many times in the specification of the ‘346 patent, e.g., at 3:32 (describing host
`
`R-347138_3
`
`17
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 17 of 179
`
`

`

`computers 400-405 of Figure 4). However, the term is not used in a manner that
`
`defines the term nor narrows the term, nor does the specification even appear to
`
`give an example of operation of the host computers. Claims 1 and 9 use the term
`
`"host computers" (e.g., claim 1-" wherein the first RAID controlling unit and the
`
`second RAID controlling unit directly exchange information with the numerous
`
`host computers", claim 9-" wherein the first network interface controller in the first
`
`RAID controller supplies data to the host computers") in the context of the host
`
`computers being in communication with the RAID controllers [RAID controlling
`
`units].
`
`38. An example of a definition from a technical dictionary from the time
`
`is that found in IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE standard terms,
`
`7th ed., 2000 (“Host Computer (1): A computer, attached to a network, providing
`
`primarily services such as computation, data base access or special programs or
`
`programming languages.”), indicating that a host computer is a network computer.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have
`
`understood the broadest reasonable interpretation of host computers, in light of the
`
`present specification, to refer to “network connected computers.”
`
`RAID controlling unit
`39. This phrase appears in claim 1 and its dependent claims, as well as in
`
`claim 9. It does not appear in the specification. The term appears to rely on
`
`R-347138_3
`
`18
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 18 of 179
`
`

`

`disclosure in the specification regarding “RAID controller” for enablement and
`
`description. However, the specification of the ‘346 patent does not define nor
`
`narrow “RAID controller.” The following passage is an example:
`
`As shown in FIG. 4, in the inventive host interface system, a
`communication circuit is provided in order for an error recovery
`between two RAID controllers 460, 461, and the bandwidth between
`two groups as the host computers 400 to 405 and two RAID
`controllers 460, 461 becomes twice the single connection bandwidth.
`Also, in the inventive host interface system, even though one RAID
`controller 460 or 461 has an occurrence of a trouble, the bandwidth
`becomes twice the single connection bandwidth. ‘346 Patent, 3:1-9.
`40.
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`would have understood the broadest reasonable interpretation of RAID controlling
`
`unit, in light of the present specification, to refer to “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.”
`
`RAID controller
`41. This term appears in claim 9. As I mentioned above, it is used in the
`
`specification, though neither defined nor narrowed. It should also be noted that
`
`RAID controller is used interchangeably with RAID controlling unit in claim 9
`
`(see, e.g., 6: 35-36—“second RAID controller”—and 6: 55-56—“second RAID
`
`R-347138_3
`
`19
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 19 of 179
`
`

`

`controlling unit”). Furthermore, the file history shows at least one place where
`
`RAID controller and RAID controlling unit were used interchangeably by the
`
`applicant. See, e.g., Response to Office Action, Filed August 19, 2004, at the
`
`paragraph spanning pages 8-9 (paragraph uses both terms and makes no distinction
`
`therebetween). With that in mind, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time would have understood the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`RAID controller, in light of the present specification, to be the same as RAID
`
`controlling unit (immediately above, “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”).
`
`RAID
`42. This term appears in the preambles of claims 1 and 9. The term is
`
`also used in claim 9—“a plurality of connection units for connecting the host
`
`computers and the RAID; a first and a second RAID controllers, included in the
`
`RAID.” ‘346 Patent at 6:23-26. RAID is used in the specification to, e.g., refer to
`
`RAID 490 of Fig. 4. There is no one definition of the term that is agreed upon by
`
`everyone. To the contrary, RAID is used in a variety of different ways to refer to
`
`an array of disks and sometime an array of disks plus other components. As one
`
`example, the Abstract of the ‘346 patent defines RAID as “a redundant array of
`
`inexpensive disks,” thereby referring only to the disks themselves. However, Fig.
`
`R-347138_3
`
`20
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 20 of 179
`
`

`

`4 of the ‘346 patent shows RAID 490, which includes RAID controllers 460, 471,
`
`as well as hubs 440, 441. Also, claim 9 recites that the first and second RAID
`
`controllers are “included in the RAID.” In other words, even the ‘346 patent is
`
`inconsistent about what a RAID is.
`
`43. Dictionary definitions tend to also be somewhat inconsistent. The
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th ed., 1999, provides the following definition of
`
`RAID that focuses on a method:
`
`RAID \rad\ n. Acronym for redundant array of independent disks
`(formerly called redundant array of inexpensive disks). A data
`storage method in which data, along with information used for error
`correction, such as parity bits or Hamming codes, is distributed among
`two or more hard disks in order to improve performance and
`reliability. The hard disk array is governed by array management
`software and a disk controller, which handles the error correction.
`RAID is generally used on network servers. Several defined levels of
`RAID offer differing trade-offs among access speed, reliability, and
`cost. See also disk controller, error-correction coding, Hamming
`code, hard disk, parity bit, server (definition 1).
`44. Peter Weygant, Clusters for High Availability: A Primer of HP-UX
`
`Solutions, 1996 (cited in related proceeding IPR2013-00635 as prior art) provides
`
`a definition of RAID that seems to focus on the disks themselves:
`
`RAID: RAID is an acronym for redundant array of inexpensive disks.
`A RAID device consists of a group of disks that can be configured in
`
`R-347138_3
`
`21
`
`DHPN-1006 / Page 21 of 179
`
`

`

`many ways, either as a single unit or in various combinations of
`striped and mirrored configurations. The types of configuration
`available are called RAID levels:
`• RAID 0: Disk striping.
`• RAID 1: Disk mirroring.
`• RAID 0/1: Sector Interleaved groups of mirrored disks. Also called
`RAID 1/0 or RAID 10
`• RAID 2: Multiple check disks using Hamming code.
`• RAID 3: Byte striped, single check disk using parity.
`• RAID 4: Block striped, single check disk using parity.
`• RAID 5: Block striped, data and parity spread over all disks.
`45. With these different definitions and uses in mind, it is my opinion that
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have understood the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of RAID, in light of the present specification, to refer to
`
`“at least a redundant array of independent disks.”
`
`V. Challenge #1: Claims 1-9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`TruCluster in view of the ‘187 patent.
`
`46. As shown below in detail, Fig. 6-6 of TruCluster, alone and without
`
`any further description, shows all of the structure recited in claim 1. Further, the
`
`system shown in Fig. 6-6 of TruCluster includes the same connection topology as
`
`in Fig. 4 of the ‘346 patent. Specifically, HSG80 A port 1 is connected to HSG80
`
`B port 1 via the DSGGA switch in the left.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket