IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`50907.2
`
`§ Petition for Inter Partes Review
`§
`§ Attorney Docket No.:
`§
`§ Customer No.:
`§
`§ Real Parties in Interest: Dell Inc.,
`§ Hewlett-Packard Company, and NetApp,
`§
`Inc.
`
`112792
`
`§ §
`
`In re patent of: Back et al.
`
`US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`Issued: December 20, 2005
`
`Title: APPARATUS FOR
`REDUNDANT INTER-
`CONNECTION
`BETWEEN MULTIPLE
`
`HOSTS AND RAID
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.0. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`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. §§ 311-319 of claims 1-9 of United States Patent No. 6,978,346 (“the
`
`‘346 Patent,” Exhibit DHPN-l 001) 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
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Mandatory Notices .......................................................................................... 1
`
`A. Real Parties-in-lnterest ............................................................................... 1
`
`B. Related Matters .......................................................................................... 1
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information .................................. 2
`
`ll. Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 2
`
`ll]. Relief Requested .............................................................................................. 3
`
`IV. The Reasons for the Requested Relief.............................................................. 3
`
`A. Summary of the “346 Patent ....................................................................... 3
`
`B. The Prosecution History ............................................................................. 5
`
`V.
`
`Identification of Challenges and Claim Construction ....................................... 5
`
`A. Challenged Claims ..................................................................................... 5
`
`B. Claim Construction .................................................................................... 5
`
`39 CI”.
`
`network interface controlling unit”
`1. “network controlling unit,
`and “network interface controller” (claims 1 and 9 and various
`dependent claims) ....................................................................................... 6
`
`2. “the second network interface controlling unit and the fourth
`network controlling unit are usedfor executing afitnction 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/nehvork switch equipment/switch] connected with the
`numerous host computers” (claims 5, 6, 7) ................................................. 6
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`5. “coupled to” (claims 3 and 5-7) ............................................................ 7
`
`“[X] ofthe at least [Y] 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) ................................................. 8
`
`“RAID controlling unit” and “RAID controller” (claims 1 and 9
`8.
`and various dependent claims) .................................................................... 8
`
`9.
`
`“RAID” (claims 1 and 9) ....................................................................... 8
`
`C. Statutory Grounds for Challenges .............................................................. 8
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1-9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over TruCluster Server Hardware Configuration (“TruCluster”)
`(DHPN-1003) in view of US. Pat. No. 6,601,187 (“the ‘187
`Patent”) (DHPN-1004). TruCluster published in April 2000 and
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). The ‘187 Patent
`was filed on March 31, 2000, and qualifies as prior art at least
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). ........................................................................... 8
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 1-9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Guidelines for OpenVMS Cluster Configurations, January
`1999 (“OpenVMS”) (DHPN-1005). OpenVMS was published in
`January 1999 and qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................ 8
`
`D.
`
`Identification of How the Construed Claims Are Unpatentable .................. 9
`
`1. Challenge #1 - Claims 1-9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over TruCluster in view of the ‘187 Patent ...................................... 9
`
`2. Challenge #2: Claims 1-9 are obvious over OpenVMS under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................. 35
`
`VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 60
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`I.
`
`Mandatory Notices
`
`A.
`
`Real Parties-in—lnterest
`
`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, Ina, 1-13-cv-01152; Safe Storage LLC v. Int ’l
`
`Business Machines Corp, 1-] 3-cv-01 151; Safe Storage LLC v. Emulex
`
`Corporation et al, 1-13-cv-01 150; Safe Storage LLC v 3PAR Inc., 1-13-cv-01088;
`
`Safe Storage LLC v Oracle America Inc- et al, l-l3-cv-01089; Safe Storage LLC v
`
`ATTO Technology Inc- et al_, 1-13-cv-01090; Safe Storage LLC v. VMware Inc., 1-
`
`13-cv-00928; Safe Storage LLC v. Promise Technology Inc., 1-] 3-cv-00927; Safe
`
`Storage LLC v. Nexsan Corporation, 1-] 3-cv-0093 1; Safe Storage LLC v.
`
`Overland Storage Inc., 1-13-cv-00932; Safe Storage LLC v. IQSS LLC, 1-] 3-cv-
`
`00930; Safe Storage LLC v. Infortrend Corporation, 1-13-cv-00929; Safe Storage
`
`LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc., 1-] 3-cv-00926; Safe Storage LLC v. Silicon Graphics
`
`Int ’l Corp., l-l2-cv-01629; Safe Storage LLC v. Dot Hill Systems Corp, 1-12-cv-
`
`01625; Safe Storage LLC v. Hitachi Data Systems Corp., 1-12-cv-01627; Safe
`
`Storage LLC v. Dell Inc., 1-12-cv-01624; Safe Storage LLC v. NetApp Inc., 1-12-
`
`cv-01 628; Safe Storage LLC v. Hewlett—Packard Company,
`
`1 -12-cv-01 626
`
`l
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Panes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`Each of these proceedings is located in the District Court for Delaware.
`
`Additionally, Petitioners have filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review of the
`
`‘346 Patent in lPR2013-OO635.
`
`
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Phone: (214) 651-5533
`David L. McCombs
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`USPTO Reg. No. 32,271
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Phone: (214) 651-5116
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`USPTO Reg. No. 50,271
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Phone: (972) 739-6923
`Thomas W. Kelton
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Thomaskelton.ipr@haynesboone.com
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`USPTO Reg. No. 54,214
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Phone: (214) 651-5328
`John Russell Emerson
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Russ.emerson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`USPTO Ref. No. 44,098
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`ll.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Panes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`11]. Relief Requested
`
`Petitioners ask that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`
`analysis, institute a trial for Inter Par-res 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 (N ICs), 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:
`
`HOSTOOMPUTEHT
`
`FIG. 4
`______J_“£‘ _______r_423 _-__._ 123 ______ 1'24
`[Hosrcomeuraflfmsr couPUTER‘IFHom GmPfiTEfiTi-HOSTGOMP-JTER'
`
`___-__ 195
`rHos‘I‘COMPlTTER—i DHPN-1001,
`
`Fig. 4
`
`-Tr”-‘
`
`Effie
`
`mm %@ @Elca
`Pa HE!
`S
`
`Ffilafi_
`
`Each RAID controller is connected to each hub/switch device by one of its
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Panes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`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,
`
`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-1001 at 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-1001 at 3:66
`
`— 4:12.
`
`In the same way, communication can also flow fi'om NIC 481 to NIC 471.
`
`DHPN-1001 at 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-1001 at 4:9-12.
`
`In the same way, communication can also
`
`flow from NIC 480 to NIC 470. DHPN-l 001 at 4:2-6.
`
`This system of redundant RAID controllers and NICs purports to provide a
`
`“fault tolerant function.” DHPN-1001 at 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 at 4:19-25.
`
`' Page references for Exhibits DHPN-1001 and 1003 through 1006 are to page
`
`numbers or columns/lines indicated by the documents themselves, not to the page
`
`numbers added for compliance with 37 CFR 42.63(d)(2)(ii).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Panes Review of US. Patent No. 6.978.346
`
`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 at pp.123-125. The Examiner initially
`
`rejected the claims over US 5,812,754 (hereinafter, “Lui”). DHPN-1002 at pp.65-
`
`69.
`
`In response, the Applicant amended claim 1 and added a claim that would
`
`eventually issue as claim 9. DHPN-1002 at p.49. The amendment to claim 1 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 1 and 9 and argued that Lui does not
`
`teach “two network interface controlling units included in each RAID controller.”
`
`DHPN-1002 at 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 at pp.26-27. The Examiner
`
`allowed the claims without providing reasons for allowance. DHPN-1002 at, pp.8-
`
`11.
`
`V.
`
`Identification of Challenges and Claim Construction
`
`A.
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1-9 of the ‘346 Patent are challenged in this petition.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`

`

`
`Petition for inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`This petition analyzes the claims consistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b):
`
`39 CI”.
`
`1.
`
`network interface controlling unit” and “network
`“network controlling unit,
`interface controller” (claims 1 and 9 and various dependent claims)
`
`The terms “network controlling unit,
`
`network interface controlling unit, ”
`
`99 S“.
`
`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.lO-12.
`
`2.
`
`“the second network interface controlling unit and the fourth network
`controlling unit are usedfor executing afunction of the 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)
`
`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 p.16.
`
`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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for inter Fortes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`“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, S, and 6 showing a hub or
`
`switch connected with the host computers. DHPN-1006 at pp.lS-l 6. Second, the
`
`phrase, “the rest of...” is not used in the specification to show a different meaning.
`
`DHPN-1006 at pp.lS-l 6. 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. DHPN-§1006 at pp.lS-l 6.
`
`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.l6-l7.
`
`6.
`
`“[X] ofthe at least [Y] connection ports is [are] coupled to one ofthe first
`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.l3-15.
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter I’artes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`7.
`
`“host computers” (claims 1, 4-7 and 9)
`
`The term “host computers” should be construed as “network connected
`
`computers.” DHPN-1006 at pp.17-18.
`
`8.
`
`“RAID controlling unit” and “RAID controller” (claims 1 and 9 and various
`dependent claims)
`
`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.18-20.
`
`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.20—22. A RAID may include RAID
`
`controllers. DHPN-1006 at pp.20-21.
`
`C.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1-9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over TruCluster
`
`Server Hardware Configuration (“TruCluster”) (DHPN-1003) in view of U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 6,601,187 (“the “187 Patent”) (DHPN-1004). TruCluster published in April
`
`2000 and qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). The ‘187 Patent was filed
`
`on March 31, 2000, and qualifies as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 1-9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Guidelines
`
`for OpenVMS Cluster Configurations, January 1999 (“OpenVMS”) (DHPN-1005).
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Panes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`OpenVMS was published in January 1999 and qualifies as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 10203).
`
`D.
`
`Identification of How the Construed Claims Are Unpatentable
`
`Challenge #1 - Claims 1-9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`1.
`over TruCluster in view of the ‘187 Patent
`
`Claims 1-9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over TruCluster in view of
`
`the ‘187 Patent. The following analysis maps the elements of the claims to
`
`TruCluster, Exhibit DHPN-1003, and the “187 Patent, Exhibit DHPN-1004. The
`
`Mercer Decl., provided at DHPN-1006, provides additional detail and analysis for
`
`mapping the claims to the art beginning at p.22.
`
`Claim 1
`
`is an apparatus claim that has the following structure: “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.” An example is
`
`found in Fig.4 of the ‘346 Patent, showing two RAID controllers, each with two
`
`Nle. Fig.6-6 of TruCluster shows the same structure.
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Panes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`Figure 6—6: Multiple-Bus NSPOF Configuration Number 2
`
`DHPN-1003,
`FIG. 6-6
`
`(annotated)
`
`First RAID
`
`
`
`
`controlling unit
`(HSGSO A) with
`network
`
`controlling units
`1 and 2 (first and
`second network
`controlling units,
`respectively)
`
`"
`
`'
`
`Second RAID
`controlling unit
`(HSGSO B) with
`network controlling
`units 1 and 2
`
`(fourth and third
`network controlling
`units, respectively)
`
`Claim 1 also contains the following structure: “a plurality of connection
`
`units for connecting the first RAID controlling units [sic] and the second RAID
`
`controlling unit to the numerous host computers.” The DSGGA units shown above
`
`from TruCluster are switches that disclose the “plurality of connection units,” and
`
`the member systems disclose the claimed “numerous host computers.” Fig.6-6 of
`
`TruCluster, alone and without any further description, shows all of the structure
`
`recited in claim 1. DHPN-1006 at p.22.
`
`Further, the system shown in F ig.6-6 of TruCluster includes the same
`
`connection topology as in Fig.4 of the “346 Patent. Specifically, HSGSO A port 1
`
`is connected to HSGSO B port 1 via the DSGGA switch in the left. Also, HSGSO
`
`A port 2 is connected to HSGSO B port 2 by the DSGGA switch on the right.
`
`TruCluster’s topology provides for the same “communication passages” described
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Panes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`in the ‘346 Patent’s specification at column 3, line 62, through column 4, line 12.
`
`DHPN-1006 at p.23. Similarly, the topology enables the information exchange
`
`recited in the last element of claim 1 :
`
`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-1006 at p.23. Thus, every element of claim 1 is suggested, if not explicitly
`
`shown, by F ig.6-6 of TruCluster.
`
`The ‘187 Patent teaches using ports (a type of network controlling unit) in
`
`dual-ported RAID controllers to communicate among the RAID controllers.
`
`DHPN-1006 at pp.23-24. For instance, the ‘187 Patent states, inter alia:
`
`Each array controller in the present system has a dedicated link via a
`
`fabric to a partner on the remote side of the long-distance link
`
`between fabric elements. Each dedicated link does not appear to any
`
`host as an available link to them for data access; however, it is visible
`
`to the partner array controllers involved in data replication operations.
`
`These links are managed by each partner array controller as if being
`
`‘clustered’ with a reliable data link between them.
`
`One port of each controller is the ‘host’ port that will serve LUN(s) to
`
`the local host 101/102. The other port of each controller is the “remote
`
`copy” port, used for disaster tolerant backup.
`
`1]
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Panes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`DHPN-1004 at 4:33-41 and 8:44-48 and Fig.3 (showing each RAID controller A1,
`
`A2, B1, B2 having dual network ports 109, just like the dual-ported RAID
`
`controllers of TruCluster F ig.6-6). Examples of information exchanged between
`
`the RAID controllers via their network ports include heartbeat signals, data for
`
`storage, write commands, acknowledgements, and failover information. DHPN-
`
`1004 at 9:35-52 and 10:8-21; DHPN-1006 at p.24.
`
`It is proposed to adopt from the ‘187 Patent the concept of RAID controllers
`
`communicating with each other via their network controlling units into the system
`
`of TruCluster.
`
`In the proposed combination, port 1 of RAID controller A
`
`exchanges information with port 1 of RAID controller B, via the switch to which
`
`they are both connected. DHPN-1006 at pp.24—25.
`
`In the same way, it is proposed
`
`that port 2 of RAID controller A exchanges information with port 2 of RAID
`
`controller B, via the switch to which they are both connected. DHPN-1006 at
`
`pp.24-25.
`
`One skilled in the art would have multiple reasons to combine the teachings
`
`of TruCluster with the “187 Patent. For example, they are both directed to the
`
`same field of endeavor — storage systems with redundant pairs of storage
`
`controllers. DHPN-1006 at p.24. TruCluster, itself, suggests the combination by
`
`explicitly showing the architecture in F ig.6-6 in which the network controlling
`
`units are connected to each other via respective DSGGA switches, thereby
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`Petition for inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`providing information paths among the network control units. See DHPN-1003,
`
`FlG.6-6, see also DHPN-1006 at p.25. Furthermore, the combination of
`
`TruCluster and the ‘187 Patent is a combination of prior art elements according to
`
`known methods to yield predictable results. DHPN-1006 at p.25. Thus, it would
`
`have been obvious to combine the teachings of TruCluster with the teachings of the
`
`‘187 Patent because it is a combination of known elements that achieve the
`
`predictable results of network controlling units exchanging information with each
`
`other over an available pathway. See KSR lntemational Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`
`US. 398, 416-417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP §2143; DHPN-1006
`
`at p.25.
`
`Thus, TruCluster and the ‘187 Patent render obvious all claims 1-9 of the
`
`‘346 Patent, as shown in detail below.
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1.0] An apparatusfor a redundant interconnection between multiple hosts and a
`
`RAID, comprising:
`
`TruCluster discloses this feature because it discloses a system having
`
`multiple “member systems” connected redundantly to a RA8000/ESA12000 Fibre
`
`Channel RAID storage subsystem. DHPN-1003, Fig 6-6 and p.2-5; DHPN-1006 at
`
`pp.26-27. The member systems 1 and 2 have multiple connections to the RA8000
`
`RAID through redundant DSGGA switches. DHPN-1006 at pp.26-27.
`
`l3
`
`

`

`Petition for inter l’artes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`M ultiple hosts
`
`RAID
`
`6-6 (annotated)
`
`
`DHPN-1003, FIG.
`
`Redundant
`
`interconnections
`
`Thus, the system that has redundant interconnections between multiple
`
`member systems and a RAID discloses “an apparatus for a redundant
`
`interconnection between multiple hosts and a RAID.”
`
`[1.1] ufirst RAID controlling units and u second RAID controlling unitfor
`processing u requirement ofnumerous host computers
`
`TruCluster discloses this limitation because it teaches a first HSGSO RAID
`
`controller (labeled “HSGSO A”) and a second HSGSO RAID controller (labeled
`
`“HSGSO B”). DHPN-1003 at F ig.6-6; DHPN-1006 at pp.27-28. Further, each
`
`HSGSO processes a requirement of numerous “member systems” by “allowing all
`
`cluster members access to all file systems and all storage in the cluster.” DHPN-
`
`1003 at p.1-1; DHPN-1006 at pp.27-28. Thus, the two HSGSO RAID controllers to
`
`provide access to file systems and storage 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 ufirst network controlling unit
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for inter Fortes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`and a second network controlling unit
`
`TruCluster discloses this limitation because it teaches that each HSGSO
`
`“controller provides two ports (left and right)...The HSGSO documentation refers
`
`to these ports as Port 1 and 2, respectively.” DHPN-1003 at p.2-5 (parentheses
`
`omitted); DHPN-1006 at pp.28-29. As shown in Fig.6-6, the ports of each HSGSO
`
`controller connect the HSGSO controller to the DSGGA switches. DHPN-1006 at
`
`pp.28-29. Thus, the controller HSGSO A including two ports that communicate
`
`over a network discloses “the first RAID controlling unit including a first network
`
`controlling unit and a second network controlling unit.”
`
`DHPN-1003, FIG. 6-6 (truncated and annotated)
`
`ports 1 and 2
`disclose first and
`
`second network
`
`respectively
`
`control units,
`
`ports 1 and 2
`disclose fourth and
`
`third network
`
`control units,
`
`respectively
`
`[1.3] and the second RAID controlling unit including a third network controlling
`unit and ofonrth network controlling unit
`
`TruCluster discloses this limitation because it teaches that each HSGSO
`
`“controller provides two ports (left and right)...The HSGSO documentation refers
`
`to these ports as Port 1 and 2, respectively.” DHPN-1003 at p.2-5 (parentheses
`
`omitted); DHPN-1006 at pp.29-30. As shown in Fig.6-6, the ports of each HSGSO
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`Petition for inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`controller connect the HSGSO controller to the DSGGA switches. DHPN-1006 at
`
`pp.29-30. Thus, the controller HSGSO B including two ports that communicate
`
`over a network discloses “the second RAID controlling unit including a third
`
`network controlling unit and a fourth network controlling unit.” The designations
`
`first, second, third, and fourth are exemplary, as either port in HSGSO A can be
`
`considered a first or second network controlling unit, and either port in HSGSO B
`
`can be considered a third or a fourth network controlling unit. DHPN-1006 at p30.
`
`[1.4] a plurality ofconnection unitsfor connecting thefirst RAID controlling
`units and the second RAID controlling unit to the numerous host computers
`
`TruCluster discloses this limitation because it teaches DSGGA switches that
`
`provide communication paths between the HSGSO RAID controllers and the
`
`member systems (host computers). DHPN-1003 at p.6-15; DHPN-1006 at pp.3 1 -
`
`32. Thus, the multiple switches that connect the first and second HSGSO RAID
`
`controllers to the member systems (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 of connecting units
`
`TruCluster discloses this limitation because it teaches that HSGSO RAID
`
`controllers communicate with the member systems through the DSGGA switches
`
`to provide access to file systems and storage. DHPN-1003 at p.1-1 and p.6-15 and
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for inter l’artes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`Fig.6-6; DHPN-1006 at pp.32-34. Thus, the HSGSO RAID controllers that
`
`exchange information with the member systems through the switches disclose “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.”
`
`[1.6] and thefirst network controlling unit exchanges information with the
`fourth network controlling unit, and
`
`[1.7] and the second network controlling unit exchanges information with the
`third network controlling unit.
`
`TruCluster in view of the “187 Patent renders these limitations obvious. For
`
`instance, as shown in F ig.6-6 (reproduced and annotated above), HSGSO A port 1
`
`(first network controlling unit) and HSGSO B port 1 (fourth network controlling
`
`unit) are connected to the same DSGGA switch. Similarly, HSGSO A port 2
`
`(second network controlling unit) and HSGSO B port 2 (third network controlling
`
`unit) are connected to the same DSGGA switch. A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood that HSGSO A port 1 and HSGSO B port 1 could
`
`communicate through their respective switch and also that HSGSO A port 2 and
`
`HSGSO B port 2 could communicate through their respective switch, as shown in
`
`Fig.6-6. DHPN-1006 at pp.34-35. Such information exchange between the cited
`
`ports is strongly suggested by architecture shown in Fig.6-6. DHPN-1006 at
`
`pp.34-35.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Fortes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`Additionally, the ‘187 Patent demonstrates that it was also well known that
`
`RAID controllers in a storage system would communicate with each other using
`
`their respective network ports. DHPN-1004 at 4:33-41 and 8:44-48 and Fig.3
`
`(showing each RAID controller A], A2, B1, B2 having dual network ports 109,
`
`just like the dual-ported RAID controllers of TruCluster Fig.6-6); DHPN-1006
`
`pp.35-37.
`
`Given the teaching above, it would have been obvious for HSGSO A port 1
`
`(first network controlling unit) to exchange information with HSGSO B port 1
`
`(fourth network controlling unit) and for HSGSO A port 2 (second network
`
`controlling unit) to exchange information with HSGSO B port 2 (third network
`
`controlling unit) through their respective switches. DHPN-1006 at pp.35-3 7.
`
`Claim 2
`
`[2.1] The apparatus as recited in claim I, wherein said respective RAID
`controlling units are connected to the plurality ofindividual connecting
`units.
`
`As discussed above, TruCluster and the ‘187 Patent render claim 1 obvious.
`
`TruCluster further discloses “said respective RAID controlling units are connected
`
`to the plurality of individual connecting units” because it teaches that HSGSO A
`
`and HSG80 B (the first and second RAID controlling units) are connected to two
`
`DSGGA switches. DHPN-1003 at F ig.6-6; DHPN-1006 at pp.37—38. Thus,
`
`HSG80 A and HSGSO B (the first and second RAID controlling units) that are
`
`connected to two switches disclose “said respective RAID controlling units are
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`Petition for inter l’artes Review of US. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`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 of one side and the second
`network interface controlling unit is coupled to the connecting unit of
`another side.
`
`As discussed above, TruCluster and the ‘187 render claim 2 obvious.
`
`TruCluster further discloses the limitation of [3.1] because it teaches, in Fig.6-6,
`
`that port 1 of HSGSO A (first network controlling unit) is connected to the switch
`
`on the left side, and port 2 of HSGSO A (second network controlling unit) is
`
`connected to the switch on the right side. DHPN-1006 at pp.38-39.
`
`Thus, port 1 of HSGSO A connected to the switch on the left and port 2 of
`
`HSGSO A connected to the switch on the right, disclose “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
`
`si