throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of: Baek et al.
`U.S. Patent No.: 6,978,346 Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`Issue Date:
` December 20, 2005
`IPR2014-00901
`Appl. Serial No.: 09/753,245
`Filing Date:
` December 29, 2000
`Title:
` APPARATUS FOR REDUNDANT INTERCONNECTION
`BETWEEN MULTIPLE HOSTS AND RAID
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`SECOND CORRECTED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,978,346 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§
`311-319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (a) (1) ........................ 1
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b) (1) ..................................... 1
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b) (2) ............................................... 1
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b) (3) ............................ 2
`D. Service Information .......................................................................................... 2
`II. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................... 2
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................ 3
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................. 3
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ....................... 3
`C. Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) ..................................... 5
`1. “RAID” (Claims 1-9) .................................................................................... 6
`2. “RAID controller/RAID controlling unit” (Claims 1-9) ............................... 7
`3. “exchange/exchanges information” (Claims 1-9) ......................................... 7
`4. “connection unit” (Claims 1-9) ..................................................................... 7
`5. “network interface controller,” “network controlling unit,” and “network
`interface controlling unit” (Claims 1-9) .............................................................. 7
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’346 PATENT ........................................................... 8
`A. Brief Description .............................................................................................. 8
`B. Prosecution History .......................................................................................... 9
`V. MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM
`FOR WHICH AN IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS ESTABLISHING A
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE
`’346 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .................................................................. 10
`A. Brief Description of the References ............................................................... 10
`i. Mylex .............................................................................................................. 10
`ii. Hathorn ........................................................................................................... 11
`iii. Deitz ............................................................................................................ 12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`iv. Griffith ......................................................................................................... 12
`v. DeKoning ........................................................................................................ 14
`B. Motivation to Combine ................................................................................... 14
`A. [GROUND 1 and GROUND 2] – The Combination of Mylex and Hathorn
`Renders Obvious Claims 1-9 ................................................................................ 17
`i. Detailed Disclosure......................................................................................... 20
`B. [GROUND 3] – The Combination of Deitz or Mylex with Griffith or
`DeKoning Renders Obvious Claims 1-9 .............................................................. 42
`i. Detailed Disclosure......................................................................................... 44
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................ 62
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`
`VMWARE-1001: U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346 to Baek et al., foreign application
`priority date 9/19/2000 (“the ’346 patent”);
`
`VMWARE-1002: Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’346 Patent;
`
`VMWARE-1003: Expert Declaration of Dr. Robert Horst;
`
`VMWARE-1004: Dr. Robert Horst Curriculum Vitae;
`
`VMWARE-1005: U.S. Patent No. 5,574,950 to Hathorn et al., issued 11/12/1996
`(“Hathorn”);
`
`VMWARE-1006: Smith, Kevin J., “Storage Area Networks: Unclogging LANs
`and Improving Data Accessibility,” Mylex Corporation White Paper (published
`5/29/1998) (“Mylex paper”);
`
`VMWARE-1007: U.S. Patent No. 6,401,170 to Griffith et al., filed on 8/18/1999
`(“Griffith”);
`
`VMWARE-1008: U.S. Patent No. 6,578,158 to Deitz et al., filed on 10/28/1999
`(“Deitz”);
`
`VMWARE-1009: Affidavit of Mr. Chris Butler, on behalf of Internet Archive;
`
`VMWARE-1010: U.S. Patent No. 6,073,218 to DeKoning et al., filed on
`12/23/1996 (“DeKoning”);
`
`VMWARE-1011: Clark, “Designing Storage Area Networks,” 1st Edition,
`Addison-Wesley Professional (1999);
`
`VMWARE-1012: Spainhower, “Design for Fault-Tolerance in System ES /9000
`Model 900,” IEEE (1992);
`
`VMWARE-1013: IEEE 100: Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms,
`7th Edition (2000); and
`
`VMWARE-1014: Siewiorek, D and Swarz R., “Reliable Computer Systems,
`Design and Evaluation,” Digital Press (1992).
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`VMware, Inc. (“Petitioner”) petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1-9 (“the Challenged Claims”)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346 (“the ’346 patent” or “the Baek patent”). As
`
`explained in this petition, there exists a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail with respect to each of the Challenged Claims.
`
`The Challenged Claims are unpatentable based on teachings set forth in the
`
`references presented in this petition. Petitioner submits that an IPR should be
`
`instituted, and that the Challenged Claims should be cancelled as unpatentable.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (a) (1)
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b) (1)
`
`Petitioner VMware, Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b) (2)
`
`The ’346 patent is the subject of a number of civil actions in the District
`
`Court for Delaware: Civil Action Nos. 1-13-cv-01152; 1-13-cv-01151; 1-13-cv-
`
`01150; 1-13-cv-01088; 1-13-cv-01089; 1-13-cv-01090; 1-13-cv-00928; 1-13-cv-
`
`00927; 1-13-cv-00931; 1-13-cv-00932; 1-13-cv-00930; 1-13-cv-00929; 1-13-cv-
`
`00926; 1-12-cv-01629; 1-12-cv-01625; 1-12-cv-01627; 1-12-cv-01624; 1-12-cv-
`
`01628; and 1-12-cv-01626.
`
`The ’346 patent is also the subject of IPR No. IPR2013-00635 and petitions
`
`for IPR Nos. IPR2014-00949 and IPR2014-00976.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b) (3)
`
`
`
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Katherine Kelly Lutton
`Reg. No. 46,333
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 202-783-2331
`
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Timothy W. Riffe
`Reg. No. 43,881
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 202-783-2331
`
`Please address all correspondence and service to counsel at the addresses
`
`provided in Section I(C) of this petition. Petitioner also consents to electronic
`
`service by email at IPR27450-0011IP1@fr.com.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`Petitioner authorizes the Patent and Trademark Office to charge Deposit
`
`Account No. 06-1050 for the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15 (a) for this petition
`
`and further authorizes payment for any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit
`
`Account.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’346 Patent is eligible for IPR. The present
`
`petition is being filed within one year of service of the complaint against Petitioner
`
`in the Delaware District Court Action.1 Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting this review challenging the Challenged Claims on the below-identified
`
`grounds.
`
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests an IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds set forth
`
`in the table shown below, and request that each of the Challenged Claims be found
`
`unpatentable. An explanation of how these claims are unpatentable under the
`
`statutory grounds identified below is provided in the form of a detailed description
`
`that indicates where each element can be found in the cited prior art, and the
`
`relevance of that prior art. Additional explanation and support for each ground of
`
`rejection is set forth in Exhibit VMWARE-1003, the Declaration of Dr. Robert
`
`Horst (“Horst Declaration”), referenced throughout this petition.
`
`
`
`
`1 The Complaint against Petitioner (No. 13-cv-00928) was served on June 4,
`
`2013.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Ground
`
`’346 Patent Claims
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`Basis for Rejections
`
`Ground 1 Claims 1-9
`
`Obvious under §103 based on Mylex in view
`
`of Hathorn
`
`Ground 2 Claims 1-9
`
`Obvious under §103 based on Hathorn in
`
`view of Mylex
`
`Ground 3 Claims 1-9
`
`Obvious under §103 based on Deitz or Mylex
`
`in view of Griffith or DeKoning
`
`
`On its face, the ’346 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`09/753,245, filed on 12/29/2000, and a Korean application filed on 9/19/2000.
`
`The Hathorn patent (Ex. 1005) issued on 11/12/1996 and thus qualifies as
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b). The Mylex paper (Ex. 1006) was
`
`publicly distributed no later than 5/29/19982 and thus qualifies as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (b). Therefore, both Hathorn and Mylex are printed
`
`publications that were publicly distributed more than one year before any of the
`
`applications to which the ’346 patent claims priority.
`
`The application that issued as the Griffith patent was filed on 8/18/1999,
`
`thus Griffith (Ex. 1007) qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The
`
`2 The Mylex paper was publicly available for download via www.mylex.com.
`
`(See Ex. 1009.)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`application that issued as the Deitz patent was filed on 10/28/1999, thus Deitz (Ex.
`
`1008) qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The application that issued as
`
`the DeKoning patent was filed on 12/23/1996, thus DeKoning (Ex. 1010) qualifies
`
`as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Therefore, Griffith, Deitz, and DeKoning are
`
`patents that issued on respective applications filed before any of the applications to
`
`which the ’346 patent claims priority.
`
`C. Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`
`A claim subject to IPR is given its “broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Thus,
`
`the words of the claim are given their plain meaning unless inconsistent with the
`
`specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Petitioner submits,
`
`for purposes of the IPR only, that the claim terms are presumed to take on their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification of the ’346 patent.
`
`In particular, Petitioner expressly reserves the right to submit constructions for
`
`individual claim terms in the matters now pending in the District of Delaware,
`
`under the legal standards applicable in those proceedings which are different than
`
`those proposed or adopted in this proceeding, including how a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand the claims in light of relevant intrinsic and
`
`extrinsic evidence.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`Under the law applicable to construction in IPR proceedings, the following
`
`claim terms should be construed applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to
`
`be broad enough to encompass the corresponding definition:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`“RAID”
`
`“redundant array of inexpensive disks”
`
`“RAID controller/RAID controlling
`
`“a component that controls operation of
`
`unit”
`
`the RAID”
`
`“exchange/exchanges information”
`
`“to transmit and receive information
`
`“connection unit”
`
`reciprocally”
`
`“a hub or switch”
`
`“network interface controller,”
`
`“the part of a RAID controller that allows
`
`“network controlling unit,” and
`
`the RAID controller to communicate with
`
`“network interface controlling unit”
`
`the ‘connection units’”
`
`
`
`1.
`
`“RAID” (Claims 1-9)
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the
`
`term “RAID” should be construed as “at least a redundant array of independent
`
`disks.” “RAID” is understood by one of ordinary skill as an acronym for
`
`“redundant array of inexpensive disks.” (Ex. 1001 at Abstract; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 14-16.)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`“RAID controller/RAID controlling unit” (Claims 1-9)
`
`2.
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the
`
`phrases “RAID controller” and “RAID controlling unit” should both be construed
`
`as “a component that controls operation of the RAID.” (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 14-16.)
`
`3.
`
`“exchange/exchanges information” (Claims 1-9)
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the
`
`phrases “exchange information” and “exchanges information” should both be
`
`construed to mean “to transmit and receive information reciprocally.” (Ex. 1003,
`
`¶¶ 14-16.)
`
`4.
`
`“connection unit” (Claims 1-9)
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the
`
`phrase “connection unit” should be construed as “a hub or switch.” (Ex. 1003, ¶¶
`
`14-16.) This construction is supported by the specification, which uses the term
`
`hub to refer to a hub or switch. (Ex. 1001 at 3:13-18.)
`
`5.
`
`“network interface controller,” “network controlling unit,”
`and “network interface controlling unit” (Claims 1-9)
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the
`
`phrases “network interface controller,” “network controlling unit,” and “network
`
`interface controlling unit” should be construed as “the part of a RAID controller
`
`that allows the RAID controller to communicate with the ‘connection units.’” (Ex.
`
`1003, ¶¶ 14-16.)
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Atttorney Docket No.: 27450-00011IP1
`
`
`IPR of U.S. PPatent No. 6,9778,346
`
`
`
`IV. SSUMMARRY OF THHE ’346 PAATENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Brieff Descriptiion
`
`
`
`A T
`
`
`
`The ’346 paatent relatees to a syst
`
`
`
`
`
`em with “rredundant
`
`
`
`interconneections
`
`
`
`betweenn multiple hosts and aa RAID.” TThe systemm includes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`two RAIDD controlleers.
`
`
`
`
`
`Each RAAID controoller has twwo networkk interfacee controllerrs (“NICs””). The systtem
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`has twoo hub/switcch devices. Fig. 4 illuustrates thee system deescribed inn the ’346
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and its AID 490 ancluding RAa system inagram of aFFigure 4 is a block dia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-405. (Ex,
`interconnnection too host compputers 400
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1001 at 2::64-3:6.) RRAID 490
`
`
`
`
`
`includess two RAIDD controlleers 460 andd 461 and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`hubs 440 aand 441. (IId. at 3:10--18.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Each RAAID controoller includdes a pair oof networkk interface
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`controllerss. For
`
`
`
`interface ccontrollerss 470 and 4471,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`examplee, RAID coontroller 460 includees network
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`and RAID controller 461 includes network interface controllers 480 and 481. (Id.
`
`at 3:11-13.) Each host computer has its own network interface controller (410 to
`
`415), which connects the host computer through the hubs to the network interface
`
`controllers (470, 471, 480, 481) of RAID controllers 460 and 461. (Id. at 3:31-35.)
`
`This structure provides a “communication passage between two RAID
`
`controllers.” (Id. at 3:64-65.) For example, RAID controller 460 can send data to
`
`RAID controller 461 via NIC 470, switch/hub 440, and NIC 480. (Id. at 3:66-
`
`4:12.)
`
`This redundant system of RAID controllers and network interface controllers
`
`purports to provide a “fault tolerant function.” (Id. at 3:63-66.) A RAID controller
`
`“having [an] error occurrence is removed from the network” and a NIC from the
`
`other RAID controller “takes over a function” of a NIC on the faulty RAID
`
`controller. (Id. at 4:19-25.)
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`Two amendments were made during prosecution of the application which
`
`issued as the ’346 patent. An initial amendment was made following a rejection
`
`over US 5,812,754 (hereinafter “Lui”). On February 10, 2005, the examiner issued
`
`a Final Office Action rejecting all claims over Lui. In response, Applicant
`
`amended claims 1-9 and argued that Lui does not teach “two network interface
`
`controlling units included in each RAID controller.” (Ex. 1002 at 48.) Applicant
`
`9
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`argued that Lui does not teach that “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.”
`
`(Id. at 48-49.)
`
`V. MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM
`FOR WHICH AN IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS ESTABLISHING A
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF
`THE ’346 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`This request shows how the references above, alone or in combination with
`
`each other and other supporting references, disclose the limitations of the
`
`Challenged Claims and show they are unpatentable. As detailed below, this request
`
`shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to the
`
`Challenged Claims.
`
`A. Brief Description of the References
`i. Mylex
`Mylex is a whitepaper entitled “Storage Area Networks: Unclogging LANs
`
`and Improving Data Accessibility,” authored by Kevin J. Smith of the Mylex
`
`Corporation and published on the Mylex Corporation’s public website. Mylex
`
`describes the Mylex Fibre Channel product line of external RAID controllers and
`
`the use of storage area networks to configure reliable and high-performance pools
`
`of storage. (Ex. 1006 at 2.) Mylex discloses SANs (storage area networks) made up
`
`of hubs and switches that include redundant connections between multiple hosts
`
`10
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`and RAID arrays, allowing for host-independent failover. (Id. at 16.) Mylex
`
`teaches fault tolerance where NICs on one RAID controller take over the function
`
`of NICs on a faulty RAID controller. (Id. at Figs. 17-19; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 39-41, 140-
`
`141). Mylex discloses a direct heartbeat path between controllers for exchanging
`
`fault tolerance information. (Ex. 1006 at Fig. 17).
`
`ii. Hathorn
`The Hathorn patent, entitled “Remote Data Shadowing Using A Multimode
`
`Interface To Dynamically Reconfigure Control Link-Level And Communication
`
`Link-Level” and assigned to IBM, is directed to DASDs (direct access storage
`
`devices) and discloses that multiple DASDs can be configured as a RAID. (Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 44.) Hathorn discloses that if a single DASD fails, then the lost data can be
`
`recovered by using the remaining data and error correction procedures. (Ex. 1005
`
`at 2:4-11.)
`
`Hathorn teaches that RAID controllers can communicate either via direct
`
`paths between controllers, like in the Mylex reference, or by modifying the NICs to
`
`communicate between each other over the existing switch network. (Ex. 1003,
`
`¶¶ 48-55.) Hathorn teaches that the storage controllers can have “dual function
`
`link-level facilities … [which allow] the primary and secondary storage controller
`
`ports 321, 324, 331, and 334 [to] be dynamically set to communicate either as a
`
`channel or control unit link-level facility.” (Ex. 1005 at 8:1-6; 10:41-45.) A
`
`11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`“channel link-level facility” allows the storage controller ports on two different
`
`RAID controllers to exchange information. (Id. at 5:8-15.)
`
`iii. Deitz
`U.S. Patent No. 6,578,158 to Deitz, titled “Method And Apparatus For
`
`Providing A RAID Controller Having Transparent Failover And Fallback,” is
`
`assigned to IBM. Deitz discloses redundant RAID systems including multiple host
`
`computers connected to a plurality of hubs, where 1) one hub is connected to (i) an
`
`active RAID controller port on a first RAID controller and (ii) an inactive RAID
`
`controller port on a second RAID controller, and 2) a second hub is connected to
`
`(i) an inactive RAID controller port on a first RAID controller and (ii) an active
`
`RAID controller port on a second RAID controller. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 224.)
`
`Deitz discloses the transmission of heartbeat signals (also called pings or
`
`polls) between RAID controllers through an inter-RAID-controller path (Figure 1)
`
`or a storage-side path (Fig. 2, and 6:59-64). (Ex. 1008, at Figs. 1-2; 6:59-63.)
`
`iv. Griffith
`The Griffith patent, titled “RAID Systems During Non-Fault And Faulty
`
`Conditions On A Fiber Channel Arbitrated Loop SCSI Bus Or Switch Fabric
`
`Configuration,” is assigned to Digi-Data Corporation. Griffith discloses a RAID
`
`system that uses arbitrated fiber channels or switch fabric to connect multiple host
`
`computers and storage array controllers (“SACs”). (Ex. 1007, at Abstract.) Griffith
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Atttorney Docket No.: 27450-00011IP1
`
`
`IPR of U.S. PPatent No. 6,9778,346
`
`Figure 55 shows ann embodimment of an ““ACTIVE--ACTIVE rredundant
`
`RAID sysstem
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`… whicch incorporrates a switch fabric configurattion.” (Id. aat 4:53-55)) Griffith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`teaches that fault ttolerance informationn can be exxchanged eeither throuugh (i) a diirect
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`path bettween RAIID controlllers or (ii) by allowinng the NICCs to exchaange
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`informaation usingg the existinng switch nnetwork. (EEx. 1007, aat 9:15-21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`; 8:25-26;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9:37-400; Ex. 10033, ¶¶ 205, 2208, 210-2
`
`
`
`Fig. 4 bbelow:
`
`
`
`14.) For exxample, se
`
`e the anno
`
`
`otated Grifffith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GGriffith disccloses a redundant RRAID syste
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`m in whichh the switcch fabric
`
`
`
`
`
`of any ssingle commputer or coontroller faailure.” (Exx. 1007, at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2:35-38; 88:63-64.)
`
`
`
`“[E]achh SAC is deesignated aa primary SSAC for ann array of sstorage uniits, which
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`connectting the host computeers and thee controllerrs “providees redundanncy in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`case
`
`it
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`normally serves as controller, and as a secondary SAC for another array of storage
`
`units.” (Id. at Abstract; Ex. 1003, ¶ 209.)
`
`DeKoning
`
`v.
`The DeKoning patent, titled “Methods And Apparatus For Coordinating
`
`Shared Multiple Raid Controller Access To Common Storage Devices,” is
`
`assigned to LSI Logic Corp. DeKoning discloses an “invention [that] provides
`
`inter-controller communications … [so that a plurality of RAID controllers]
`
`communicate among themselves to permit continued operations in case of
`
`failures.” (Ex. 1010 at 3:15-21.) DeKoning teaches using several communication
`
`mediums to exchange between RAID controllers, including using the existing host-
`
`side communication bus. (Id. at 4:58-5:10; Ex. 1003, ¶ 206.)
`
`B. Motivation to Combine
`One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the respective
`
`teachings of Mylex and Hathorn to render obvious claims 1-9 of the ’346 Patent.
`
`One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of
`
`Mylex with Hathorn because of the close relationship between Mylex Corporation
`
`and IBM, assignee of the Hathorn patent. In September of 1999, IBM acquired
`
`Mylex. Storage system designers at IBM in the 2000 timeframe would have been
`
`strongly motivated to combine and leverage storage technology from Mylex, and
`
`vice versa. Later IBM products were partly based on the technology IBM acquired
`
`14
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`from Mylex, demonstrating that the motivation to combine these features was real
`
`and actually resulted in new products. (Ex. 1003, ¶ 34.)
`
`Mylex and Hathorn also are directed to the same field of endeavor, and both
`
`describe similar redundant RAID systems that connect multiple hosts to switches
`
`or hubs, which in turn connect to RAID controllers with two or more ports. Both
`
`Mylex and Hathorn describe redundancy in terms of sending communications
`
`between two or more RAID controllers and/or network interface controller ports.
`
`Both Mylex and Hathorn disclose RAID 1-type systems (disk mirroring/
`
`shadowing) (Ex. 1006 at 12; Ex. 1005 at 1:9-12), and disclose using off-the-shelf
`
`components for constructing the RAID system, and as such their combination is
`
`merely the use of known techniques to achieve predictable results. (Ex. 1006 at 15
`
`(marketing “Mylex controllers”); Ex. 1005 at 6:25-34 (describing an IBM
`
`Enterprise Systems/9000 (ES/9000) processor running DFSMS/MVS operating
`
`software, IBM 3990 Model 6 storage controllers, and an IBM ESCON Director
`
`dynamic switch).) One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to study
`
`multiple examples of disk mirroring systems when designing a new RAID system.
`
`As a result of their similarity, one of ordinary skill would have been able to apply
`
`the fault tolerance teachings of Mylex to the system disclosed by Hathorn, or the
`
`modifying NICs to communicate teachings of Hathorn to the system disclosed by
`
`Mylex with predictable results. (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 33-34.)
`
`15
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`In addition, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply (i) the
`
`Griffith teachings of exchanging fault tolerance information using the existing
`
`switch network or (ii) the DeKoning teachings of using a host-side communication
`
`bus to allow RAID controllers to exchange information, to the systems described in
`
`Mylex or Deitz in order to render every claim in the ’346 patent obvious. Mylex,
`
`Deitz, Griffith and DeKoning are in the same field of endeavor. Each describes
`
`redundant RAID systems that connect multiple hosts to RAID controllers. While
`
`Griffith only discloses using one switch or hub, and DeKoning discloses using a
`
`host-side communication bus, the concept of using multiple switches or hubs in
`
`RAID systems was well known at the time of the alleged invention. (See Ex. 1005
`
`at Fig. 3.)
`
`Further, Griffith, DeKoning, Deitz and Mylex describe fault tolerance in
`
`terms of sending communications between two or more RAID controllers and/or
`
`network interface controlling unit ports. One of ordinary skill would have been
`
`motivated to study multiple examples of fault tolerant RAID systems when
`
`designing a new RAID system, and Mylex Corporation, IBM (assignee of the
`
`Deitz patent) and Digi-Data Corporation (assignee of the Griffith patent) were all
`
`RAID providers. One of ordinary skill would have known to look at the teachings
`
`of these RAID providers when configuring redundant RAID systems. Furthermore,
`
`Mylex, Deitz, and Griffith all describe redundant RAID systems comprised of off-
`
`16
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`the shelf components, and as such their combination is merely the use of known
`
`techniques to achieve predictable results. (Ex. 1006 at 15 (marketing “Mylex
`
`controllers”); Ex. 1007 at 5:33-35 (“A preferred SAC is the Z-9100 Ultra-Wide
`
`SCSI RAID controller manufactured by Digi-Data Corporation, Jessup, Md.”); Ex.
`
`1008 at 5:33-36 (“controllers 105 can be any suitable fibre channel compatible
`
`controller that can be modified to operate according to the present invention, such
`
`as for example the DAC960SF, commercially available from Mylex, Inc., Boulder,
`
`Colo.”).)
`
`One of ordinary skill also would have been motivated to combine the
`
`teachings of Griffith with Mylex controllers because Griffith discloses that its
`
`“preferred dual-port disk is the 3.5-Inch Ultrastar2 XP available from IBM” (Ex.
`
`1007 at 8:38-39), and there was a close relationship between IBM and Mylex
`
`Corporation. In September of 1999, IBM completed the acquisition of Mylex.
`
`Storage system designers in that timeframe using the IBM 3.5-Inch Ultrastar2 XP
`
`disclosed in Griffith would have been strongly motivated to combine and leverage
`
`the teachings from other IBM and Mylex storage technology.
`
`A.
`
`[GROUND 1 and GROUND 2] – The Combination of Mylex and
`Hathorn Renders Obvious Claims 1-9
`
`Claims 1-9 of the ’346 patent are obvious in light of Mylex in view of the
`
`teachings of Hathorn, and/or Hathorn in view of the teachings of Mylex, thereby
`
`rendering each of these claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Atttorney Docket No.: 27450-00011IP1
`
`
`IPR of U.S. PPatent No. 6,9778,346
`
`
`SSpecificallyy, a person of ordinarry skill wouuld undersstand that tthe Mylex
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`paper diiscloses evvery elemennt of the ’3346 patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’s claims 11-9, with thhe exceptioon
`
`
`
`of a direect exchannge of inforrmation beetween netwwork interfface controolling unitss.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Instead,, the Mylexx paper disscloses a diirect “hearrtbeat” commmunicatioon path
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`betweenn controllers for exchhanging infformation. However,, the Hathoorn patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`teaches that commmunication paths are eexpensive,, and that tthis expensse can be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reducedd by modifyfying netwoork interfacce controllling unit poorts to use
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the existinng
`
`
`
`switch nnetwork foor communnications beetween RAAID controollers (insteead of usinng a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`direct “hheartbeat” path). (Exx. 1003, ¶¶
`
`
`
`
`
`32, 48-55
`
`
`
`.) An annootated Myllex Figure
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`is includded below showing tthis combinnation:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AAdditionally, a personn of ordinaary skill woould underrstand that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Hathorrn
`
`
`
`patent ddiscloses evvery elemeent of the ’
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`346 patentt’s claims
`
`
`
`1-9, with thhe possiblee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`exceptioon of the fafault tolerannce functioonality reciited in the
`
`
`
`
`
`’346 patennt’s claimss 4
`
`
`
`
`
`and 9. HHowever, the Mylex paper teacches fault ttolerance aas claimed.. (Ex. 10033,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No.: 27450-0011IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`¶¶ 40-41.) Hathorn discloses that all NICs can be modified to exchange
`
`information using the switch network. (Ex. 1005 at 11:25-43 (“The primary storage
`
`controller 325, acting as host with the ports 324 enabled as channel link-level
`
`facility, sends an EPC frame to the secondary storage controller 335 … the
`
`secondary storage controller 335 processes the EPC frame and returns an
`
`acknowledgement (ACK) frame.”); Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 48-55.) As such, with reference
`
`to Hathorn Fig. 3, ports 324B and 334B (2nd and 4th NICs) can be used to
`
`exchange fault tolerance information in a non-faulty state, as claimed. Using the
`
`fault tolerance teachings of Mylex, these ports can execute a function of ports
`
`324A and 334A (1st and 3rd NICs) in a faulty state, as claimed.
`
`Further, with respect to claim element [4b], one of ordinary skill, using the
`
`teachings of Hathorn, would have found it obvious to configure Mylex’s second
`
`and fourth network interface controlling units to exchange fault tolerance
`
`information. For example, with reference to Mylex Fig. 17, using the “reserved”
`
`second and fourth NICs for exchangin

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