`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`
`VMWARE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00901
`Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`__________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`
`A. Other Inter Partes Reviews ................................................................... 1
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The ’346 Patent. .................................................................................... 4
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 8
`
`Claims of the ’346 Patent ...................................................................... 9
`
`III.
`
`INTERPRETATION OF THE ’346 PATENT CLAIMS ............................. 11
`
`A.
`
`“RAID” ................................................................................................ 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“D” is for “Disk Drive” in RAID. ............................................. 13
`
`“A” in RAID is for Array, Which is a Single Logical
`Unit. ........................................................................................... 13
`
`The Petitioner’s Own Documents – Hathorn, DeKoning,
`and the Katz Declaration – Support the Owner’s
`Interpretation. ............................................................................ 14
`
`4. Weygant and Chen do Not Support a Contrary View. ............. 16
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`“RAID Controller” .............................................................................. 18
`
`“Connection Unit” ............................................................................... 20
`
`“Network Interface Controller” ........................................................... 20
`
`“Exchanges Information” .................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page ii 
`
`

`

`IV. TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED REGARDING
`CHALLENGE 2 (HATHORN IN VIEW OF MYLEX). .............................. 24
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Should Not Institute Trial on Challenge 2 Pursuant
`to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Because Challenge 2 is Duplicative of the
`Challenge at Trial in IPR2013-00635. ................................................ 24
`
`Challenge 2 Does Not Have a Reasonable Likelihood of
`Succeeding Because Hathorn is a Deficient Primary Reference. ....... 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Hathorn’s RAID Teachings and Figure 3 are Unrelated. ......... 26
`
`There is No RAID in Hathorn’s Figure 3. ................................ 28
`
`Hathorn Fails to Disclose Two RAID Controllers. .................. 29
`
`Hathorn Fails to Disclose a RAID Controller With Two
`Network Interface Controllers. ................................................. 31
`
`Hathorn Fails to Disclose the Host Communications of
`Claims 4 and 9. .......................................................................... 32
`
`V.
`
`TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED REGARDING
`CHALLENGE 1 (MYLEX IN VIEW OF HATHORN). .............................. 34
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Proposed Modification to Mylex is Not Supported by a
`Proper Motivation or Other Legally Sufficient and Technically
`Sound Rationale. ................................................................................. 36
`
`There Would Have Been No Reasonable Expectation of
`Success to Modify Mylex as the Petition Proposes. ........................... 38
`
`The Proposed Modification to Mylex is Unworkable Because
`Mylex’s Reserved Ports are Inactive. .................................................. 41
`
`D. Mylex is a Deficient Primary Reference Because it Has Only
`One “Connection Unit.” ...................................................................... 44
`
`E. Mylex is a Deficient Primary Reference Because it Does Not
`Necessarily Have Multiple Network Interface Controllers. ................ 47
`
`F.
`
`Challenges 1 and 2 are Redundant. ..................................................... 47
`
`IPR2013‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page iii 
`
`

`

`VI. TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED REGARDING THE
`VARIOUS CHALLENGES LABELED “CHALLENGE 3.” ...................... 48
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“Challenge 3” is Fatally Vague and Multiplicitous. ........................... 48
`
`The Various Combinations in “Challenge 3” are Redundant to
`One Another and to Challenge 1. ........................................................ 49
`
`All “Challenge 3” Challenges Based on Mylex Fail to Have a
`Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing. ................................................. 51
`
`1. Mylex is a Deficient Primary Reference for Challenge 3
`Just as it is for Challenge 2. ...................................................... 51
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Proposed Modification to Mylex is Not Supported
`by a Proper Motivation or Other Legally Sufficient and
`Technically Sound Rationale. ................................................... 51
`
`There Would Have Been No Reasonable Expectation of
`Success to Modify Mylex as the Petition Proposes. ................. 55
`
`The Proposed Modification to Mylex is Unworkable
`Because Mylex’s Reserved Ports are Inactive Before
`Failover. .................................................................................... 56
`
`D. All “Challenge 3” Challenges Based on Deitz Fail to Have a
`Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing. ................................................. 57
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Proposed Modification to Deitz is Not Supported by
`a Proper Motivation or Other Legally Sufficient and
`Technically Sound Rationale. ................................................... 57
`
`The Proposed Modification to Deitz is Unworkable
`Because Deitz Also has Inactive Ports. .................................... 58
`
`Deitz is a Deficient Primary Reference Because it Does
`Not Necessarily Have Multiple Network Interface
`Controllers. ................................................................................ 59
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`IPR2013‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page iv 
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......... 27, 32
`
`Carl Zeiss SMT GmbH v. Nikon Corp., IPR2013-00363, Paper 17 (Jan. 30,
`2014) .............................................................................................................. 50
`
`CFMT Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir., 2003) ....................... 43
`
`Dell, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecomm’ns Research Inst., IPR2013-00635, Paper 19
`(Mar. 20, 2014) .............................................................................. 2, 13, 18, 21
`
`Dell, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecomm’ns Research Inst., IPR2013-00635, Paper 33
`(Sept. 19, 2014) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`Dell, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecomm’ns Research Inst., IPR2013-00635, Paper 28
`(June 20, 2014) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`Dell, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecomm’ns Research Inst., IPR2014-00152, Paper 12
`(May, 16 2014) .......................................................................................... 2, 21
`
`Gubelmann v. Gang, 408 F.2d 758 (CCPA 1969) ................................................... 32
`
`Innovention Toys LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........ 52
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., IPR2013-00324, Paper
`19 (Nov. 21, 2013) ......................................................................................... 25
`
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................. 38
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................ 38
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper
`7 (Oct. 25, 2012) ................................................................................ 47, 49, 50
`
`MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............. 31
`
`In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................... 11, 12
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............... 28, 46
`
`In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578 (CCPA 1981) .............................................................. 31
`
`IPR2013‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page v 
`
`

`

`Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................... 38
`
`Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir.
`2009) .................................................................................................. 38, 40, 56
`
`In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981 (CCPA 1974) ................................................................ 43
`
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC, IPR2013-00581, Paper 15 (Dec. 30,
`2013) .............................................................................................................. 25
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, No. 742 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......... 12, 22
`
`Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........ 28, 32
`
`TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc., IPR2014-00257, Paper 16 (June
`26, 2014) ........................................................................................................ 55
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119 .......................................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 48
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ............................................................................................ 40, 56
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i) ........................................................................................ 48
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page vi 
`
`

`

`
`Other Authorities
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002) ....................................................... 14
`
`MPEP § 2112(IV) .................................................................................................... 32
`
`MPEP § 2217(I) ....................................................................................................... 48
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48764 (Aug. 14,
`2012) ........................................................................................................................ 11
`
`Webster’s Computer Dictionary (9th ed. 2001)....................................................... 14
`
`IPR2013‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page vii 
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, the Patent Owner
`
`provides this Preliminary Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review filed on
`
`June 4, 2014 and last corrected on July 21, 2014.1 A Notice dated June 27, 2014
`
`(Paper 5) set September 27, 2014 as the deadline for this Preliminary Response.
`
`This Preliminary Response is timely filed.
`
`The Petition proposes what are labeled as three different challenges, but the
`
`so-called third one is actually four different challenges, and there are redundancies
`
`among the six total challenges. Regardless, each challenge in the Petition fails to
`
`meet the statutory threshold of having a reasonable likelihood of succeeding. For
`
`that reason, as well as others explained herein, the Patent Owner respectfully
`
`requests that the Board deny the Petition and not institute trial.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Other Inter Partes Reviews
`
`The current Petition is one of five petitions for inter partes review of the
`
`ʼ346 Patent. The first petition was filed by Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., and
`
`
`1 All references herein to “Petition” or “Pet.” are to the second corrected petition
`
`filed on July 21, 2014 (Paper 8).
`
`IPR2014‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page 1 of 60 
`
`

`

`NetApp, Inc. in IPR2013-00635. The Board instituted trial to determine whether
`
`claims 1-3 and 5-8 are anticipated by Hathorn, the same reference cited in
`
`Challenges 1 and 2 in this Petition. Dell, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecomm’ns Research
`
`Inst., IPR2013-00635, Paper 19 (Mar. 20, 2014) (herein “’635 Inst. Dec’n”). Other
`
`challenges proposed in the IPR2013-00635 petition were denied, and claims 4 and
`
`9 are not at issue in that case. Id. The Patent Owner filed a Response with a
`
`supporting declaration by Dr. Thomas M. Conte (Ex. 2003,2 herein “Conte ’635
`
`Decl.”) in June 2014, id., Paper 28 (June 20, 2014) , and the petitioners filed a
`
`reply in September 2014, id., Paper 33 (Sept. 19, 2014). An oral hearing is
`
`scheduled for December 18, 2014.
`
`The second petition was also filed by Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., and
`
`NetApp, Inc. in IPR2014-00152. The Board did not institute trial on any of the
`
`challenges proposed in that petition. Dell, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecomm’ns Research
`
`Inst., IPR2014-00152, Paper 12 (May, 16 2014) (herein “’152 Non-Inst. Dec’n”).
`
`
`
`2 All Patent Owner exhibits also of record in IPR2013-00635 have the same exhibit
`
`number here as in that case, in the range 2001-2099. New Patent Owner exhibits
`
`in this case begin with number 2101.
`
`IPR2014‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page 2 of 60 
`
`

`

`Next, the present Petition was filed by VMware, Inc. proposing “three”
`
`obviousness challenges to all claims. Two of those challenges involve Hathorn,
`
`the same reference at issue in trial in IPR2013-00635.
`
`Two more petitions have been subsequently filed, both by International
`
`Business Machines Corp. and Oracle America, Inc. as joint petitioners. The first of
`
`those two petitions, in IPR2014-00949, is substantively identical to the present
`
`Petition. In fact, the IPR2014-00949 petition includes a copy of the same
`
`declaration by Dr. Horst filed with the present Petition. A preliminary response
`
`was filed on September 17, 2014.
`
`Finally, the other petition filed by International Business Machines Corp.
`
`and Oracle America, Inc., in IPR2014-00976, proposes an anticipation challenge to
`
`all claims of the ’346 Patent based on a reference not at issue in this or any of the
`
`other inter partes reviews. A preliminary response to that petition was also filed on
`
`September 17, 2014.
`
`Although the Board is familiar with the ’346 Patent from the two prior inter
`
`partes reviews, the Patent Owner provides the following abbreviated review of the
`
`aspects of the ’346 Patent and its prosecution history most pertinent to deciding
`
`whether to institute trial on the challenges presented in the present Petition.
`
`IPR2014‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page 3 of 60 
`
`

`

`B.
`
`The ’346 Patent.
`
`The ʼ346 Patent is directed at useful and advantageous ways to interconnect
`
`a RAID, an acronym for “redundant array of inexpensive disks,” to its host
`
`computers. Although a RAID is formed of many disk drives, it appears via a
`
`controller – a RAID controller – to its host(s) as a single disk storage peripheral.
`
`(Conte ’635 Decl. ¶¶ 18-21.) A RAID provides redundancy at the disk-drive level
`
`and thus protection against failure of one or more disk drives within the RAID.
`
`(Id. ¶ 18.) The inventors of the ’346 Patent did not invent the concept of RAID.
`
`Instead of providing redundancy at the level of the disk drives, as a RAID already
`
`provides, the invention described and claimed in the ’346 Patent provides novel
`
`and advantageous redundant interconnections between a RAID and its host
`
`computers. That interconnection provides both fault tolerance and enhanced
`
`performance, measured in terms of bandwidth, if a controller or connection fails.
`
`(Id. ¶ 31; ’346 Patent 2:11-15, 3:1-9.) Thus, the ’346 Patent is aptly entitled
`
`“Apparatus for Redundant Interconnection Between Multiple Hosts and RAID”
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`The ’346 Patent describes several prior art systems that attempt, like the
`
`invention, to provide interconnection redundancy between multiple hosts and a
`
`RAID, but none of them do so while preserving the same performance as before a
`
`controller or connection fault. Most notably for purposes of understanding the
`
`IPR2014‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page 4 of 60 
`
`

`

`prior art cited in the Petition, Figure 2 (reproduced above right) illustrates a prior
`
`art system having a single hub or switch 210 connecting host computers 200 and
`
`201 with RAID controllers 230 and 231 of a RAID 240. The RAID controllers
`
`230 and 231 include communication controllers 221 and 222, which are directly
`
`connected to each other, as in the new references cited in the Petition. One RAID
`
`controller is the backup for the other,
`
`should the other RAID controller or its
`
`connection to the hub or switch 210
`
`fail.
`
` While
`
`that
`
`interconnection
`
`provides fault tolerance, a fault in one
`
`of
`
`the RAID controllers or
`
`its
`
`connection to the hub or switch causes
`
`the system to have only half the
`
`bandwidth between each of the host
`
`computers 200-201 and the RAID 240
`
`as compared to its state before the fault. (’346 Patent 1:49-59; Conte ’635 Decl. ¶¶
`
`25-26.)
`
`The inventions of the ’346 Patent, as illustrated by way of example in
`
`Figures 4 and 5, provide enhanced redundancy to interconnect the host computers
`
`with a RAID. Referring to Figure 4 (reproduced below) as an example, a RAID
`
`IPR2014‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page 5 of 60 
`
`

`

`490 has two RAID controllers 460 and 461, each of which has two network
`
`interface controllers – 470 and 471 in the RAID controller 460, and 480 and 481 in
`
`the RAID controller 461. Two hubs or switches 440 and 441 connect each RAID
`
`controller
`
`to a plurality of host computers 400-405.
`
` This redundant
`
`interconnection scheme provides fault tolerance with the same bandwidth before
`
`and after a fault. (’346 Patent 3:1-9; Conte ’635 Decl. ¶ 31.)
`
`
`
`For example, before a RAID controller or connection fault, the host
`
`computer 404 would communicate with the RAID 490 via the hub or switch 441 to
`
`the network interface controller 481 of the RAID controller 461. (’346 Patent 3:6
`
`– 4:12.) If there is a failure of the RAID controller 461 or its connection to the hub
`
`or switch 441, then the host computer 404 could communicate with the RAID 490
`
`via the other RAID controller 460, specifically its network interface controller 471.
`
`IPR2014‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page 6 of 60 
`
`

`

`(Id. 4:19-25; Conte ’635 Decl. ¶ 30.) The following annotated versions of Figure 4
`
`of the ’346 Patent illustrate these two data transfer paths. The drawing on the left
`
`illustrates the primary data transfer path through the network interface controller
`
`481 before failover, and the drawing on the right illustrates the data transfer path
`
`through the network interface controller 471 after failure of the RAID controller
`
`461 (Conte ’635 Decl. ¶ 30):
`
`
`
`
`
`Similarly, the network interface controller 480 can be used if the network
`
`interface controller 470 in the other RAID controller fails. (’346 Patent 4:19-25)
`
`Thus, if either network interface controller 470 or 481 or its connection to the hub
`
`or switch fails, then network interface controller 480 or 471, respectively, in the
`
`other RAID controller can serve the same function, and the overall bandwidth
`
`between each of the host computers 400-405 and the RAID 490 remains the same.
`
`IPR2014‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page 7 of 60 
`
`

`

`(Conte ’635 Decl. ¶ 31.) Accordingly, the present invention “provides an
`
`apparatus for a redundant interconnection between multiple host computers and a
`
`RAID, which is capable of supporting a fault tolerance of a RAID controller and
`
`simultaneously heightening a performance” relative to the prior art systems, i.e.,
`
`maintaining bandwidth despite a fault. (See, e.g., ’346 Patent 2:11-15.)
`
`To facilitate failover from one network interface controller to another,
`
`network interface controllers 470 and 480 exchange information, as do network
`
`interface controllers 481 and 471 (see, e.g., ’346 Patent 3:1-3, 3:62-66), as
`
`illustrated by way of example annotated versions of Figure 4 of the ’346 Patent in
`
`§ II-D infra at 9.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The application that led to the ʼ346 Patent was filed on December 29, 2000
`
`(Ex. 2001 at 1) and claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 to a patent application
`
`filed September 19, 2000 in Korea (id. at 24). A first Office action rejected all
`
`originally filed claims 1-8. (Id. at 91-95.) The Patent Owner responded by
`
`amending claims 1-8 (id. at 102-03), adding new claim 9 (id. at 104), and arguing
`
`against the rejections (id. at 105-08), explaining that pairs of network interface
`
`controllers exchange information through the connecting units:
`
`IPR2014‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page 8 of 60 
`
`

`

`
`
`(Id. at 106 (emphases added).) After the Examiner maintained the same rejections,
`
`the Patent Owner responded by amending the claims further and repeating the
`
`same remarks quoted above explaining that pairs of network interface controllers
`
`exchange information through the connecting units. (Id. at 135-36 (emphases
`
`added).) The Examiner then allowed all claims without providing any reasons for
`
`allowance. (Id. at 146.) The ʼ346 Patent thus granted having claims 1-9.
`
`D. Claims of the ’346 Patent
`
`Independent claims 1 and 9 use slightly different terminology to refer to the
`
`components of the invention. The following color-annotated versions of Figure 4
`
`are helpful as aids in understanding those claims. The added color labels in these
`
`drawings correspond to the terminology used in the respective claims. The orange
`
`arrows in both drawings illustrate the exchange of information between network
`
`interface controllers, as recited in the claims. For clarity, this document uses the
`
`IPR2014‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page 9 of 60 
`
`

`

`labels in Figure 4 (i.e., “RAID controller” and “network interface controller”)
`
`except when quoting the slightly different names used in claim 1.
`
`’346 PATENT FIG. 4 ANNOTATED WITH CLAIM 1 TERMINOLOGY 
`
`’346 PATENT FIG. 4 ANNOTATED WITH CLAIM 9 TERMINOLOGY 
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page 10 of 60 
`
`

`

`III.
`
`INTERPRETATION OF THE ’346 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`The Office’s policy is to give the claims of a duly granted patent in a review
`
`proceeding their “broadest reasonable interpretation.” Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012). Such an interpretation must be
`
`reasonable; in fact, it must be reasonable in light of the relevant intrinsic evidence,
`
`including the specification. A body of case law has held that in the context of
`
`original patent examination, where the applicant has an almost unfettered ability to
`
`amend its claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation must be in light of the
`
`specification, which is the only intrinsic evidence fixed at the time of filing. In re
`
`Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he PTO is required to
`
`consult the specification during examination in order to determine the permissible
`
`scope of the claim.”). In that context, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`claim language is the “meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would
`
`be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
`
`enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the
`
`written description contained in the applicant's specification.” Id. at 1054.
`
`For a patent under review, the entire original prosecution history is fixed at
`
`the time of filing of the review petition. In fact, courts have long recognized that
`
`the public relies on the prosecution history and held that such reliance is proper.
`
`For at least these reasons, it would be unreasonable for the Office during a review
`
`IPR2014‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page 11 of 60 
`
`

`

`of a granted patent to ignore “whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
`
`otherwise that may be afforded by” the concluded original prosecution history. Id.
`
`Indeed, the Federal Circuit has recently instructed the Office to take into account
`
`the patentee’s statements in the original prosecution history to interpret claims of a
`
`patent under reexamination. Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973,
`
`977 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he prosecution history . . . serves as intrinsic evidence
`
`for purposes of claim construction. This remains true in construing patent claims
`
`before the PTO.”) The Board must do the same in this review.
`
`The Board has preliminarily interpreted some terms and phrases of the ’346
`
`Patent claims in its institution decision in IPR2013-00635 and its non-institution
`
`decision in IPR2014-00152, and, in those other proceedings, the Patent Owner has
`
`proposed interpretations of certain claim terms and phrases, the meaning of which
`
`do not matter to decide the challenges in this Petition. What follows are the Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed interpretations of claim terms and phrases that are relevant to an
`
`analysis of the challenges raised in this Petition.
`
`A.
`
`“RAID”
`
`The meaning of the term “RAID” is pertinent to Challenge 2, as Hathorn
`
`does not contemplate a RAID as part of its relevant disclosure (i.e., Figure 3) and
`
`thus cannot stand as a primary reference. That is true under the Board’s
`
`preliminary interpretation, which simply spells out the acronym (i.e., redundant
`
`IPR2014‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page 12 of 60 
`
`

`

`array of inexpensive disks), ’635 Inst. Dec’n at 8, apparently leaving each term
`
`therein to take its ordinary meaning in the art in that context. In that case, so long
`
`as a reasonable meaning is attributed to the term “array” in the acronym, then
`
`Hathorn’s remote mirrored or shadowed disk drives do not form an “array” and
`
`thus not a “RAID.” However, the better approach to deciding the Hathorn-based
`
`challenges in this and the other reviews is to more explicitly define the terms that
`
`make up the acronym. At least the terms “array” and “disks” deserve further
`
`elaboration.
`
`1.
`
`“D” is for “Disk Drive” in RAID.
`
`First, the term “disks” in the acronym means disk drives, rather than disk
`
`platters. The term “disks” can have multiple meanings. A single disk drive
`
`(sometimes imprecisely called a “disk”) may have multiple disk platters
`
`(sometimes imprecisely called “disks”), but a single disk drive is in no sense a
`
`RAID. (See Conte ’635 Decl. ¶¶ 16, 18.) Instead, a RAID is an array of multiple
`
`disk drives configured for redundancy. (Id. ¶ 18.)
`
`2.
`
`“A” in RAID is for Array, Which is a Single Logical Unit.
`
`Second, a RAID, as an “array,” is a single logical storage unit of disk drives.
`
`Multiple technical dictionaries support this view. For example, Webster’s
`
`Computer Dictionary defines “RAID x” (where x = 0, 1, and 2) as “[a] type of
`
`RAID storage device that combines two or more hard disks into a single logical
`
`IPR2014‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page 13 of 60 
`
`

`

`drive. . . .” (Webster’s Computer Dictionary at 308 (9th ed. 2001) (Ex. 2004 at 11)
`
`(emphasis added); Conte ’635 Decl. ¶ 19.) Similarly, the Microsoft Computer
`
`Dictionary defines “RAID” saying, in part, “A data storage method in which data
`
`is distributed across a group of computer disk drives that function as a single
`
`storage unit. . . .” (Microsoft Computer Dictionary at 437 (5th ed. 2002) (Ex. 2005
`
`at 3) (emphasis added); Conte ’635 Decl. ¶ 19.) In fact, a RAID is an alternative to
`
`a Single Large Expensive Disk (SLED), which, of course, presents itself as a single
`
`logical drive. (See Conte ’635 Decl. ¶ 16-18.) As Dr. Conte explains, “[W]hat sets
`
`a RAID apart is that it is a 'black box' that can be interchanged with a traditional
`
`disk drive without needing to change the hardware or software interfaces.” (Conte
`
`’635 Decl. ¶ 19; see also generally id. ¶¶ 18-21, 38.)
`
`3.
`
`The Petitioner’s Own Documents – Hathorn, DeKoning,
`and the Katz Declaration – Support the Owner’s
`Interpretation.
`
`Hathorn supports the view that a RAID must be a single logical storage unit
`
`of disk drives. Hathorn makes a clear distinction between a “RAID” and a
`
`mirroring or dual-copy system employing two disk drives, which, although
`
`redundant, do not form an “array” in the sense of a RAID. Indeed, Hathorn
`
`describes these two scenarios as “alternative[s].” (Hathorn 1:60 – 2:11.)
`
`DeKoning (not cited in IPR2013-00635) further supports this understanding
`
`in the art, stating:
`
`IPR2014‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page 14 of 60 
`
`

`

`RAID storage subsystems typically utilize a control
`module that shields the user or host system from the
`details of managing the redundant array. The controller
`makes the subsystem appear to the host computer as a
`single, highly reliable, high capacity disk drive. In
`fact, the RAID controller may distribute the host
`computer system supplied data across a plurality of the
`small independent drives with redundancy and error
`checking information so as to improve subsystem
`reliability. Frequently RAID subsystems provide large
`cache memory structures
`to
`further
`improve
`the
`performance of the RAID subsystem. The cache memory
`is associated with the control module such that the
`storage blocks on the disk array are mapped to blocks in
`the cache. This mapping is also transparent to the host
`system. The host system simply requests blocks of data
`to be read or written and
`the RAID controller
`manipulates the disk array and cache memory as
`required.
`
`(DeKoning 1:65 – 2:14 (emphases added).)
`
`Finally, the Petitioners recognize this fundamental aspect of a RAID. In
`
`IPR2014-00976, the Petition argues that the Chong reference discloses a RAID
`
`“because the two data storage devices appear to the hosts as a single, reliable
`
`drive.” (Ex. 2201 at 13 (emphasis added).) In fact, not only does the Petition
`
`IPR2014‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page 15 of 60 
`
`

`

`contend that “[t]he configuration disclosed by the Chong Reference is a RAID
`
`configuration” precisely for this reason, the Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Katz, agrees.
`
`According to him, Chong’s alleged “combination of data mirroring and fault
`
`tolerance makes the two data storage devices appear as a single, reliable drive to
`
`the hosts, or in other words, a RAID.” (Ex. 2202 ¶ 36 (emphasis added) (not cited
`
`in IPR2013-00635).)
`
`4. Weygant and Chen Do Not Support a Contrary View.
`
`Weygant (Ex. 2101) and Chen (Ex. 2102) are cited by the petitioners in
`
`IPR2014-00635 to support the same interpretation of “RAID” as taken by the
`
`Petitioner here. However, neither Weygant nor Chen actually supports the
`
`petitioners; instead, those documents support the Patent Owner’s interpretation.
`
`First and foremost, Weygant is not an authoritative source and certainly not
`
`as authoritative as a dictionary, such as the ones cited above. Secondly, the
`
`passage of Weygant’s reading “[a] RAID device consists of a group of disks that
`
`can be configured in many ways, either as a single unit or in various combinations
`
`of striped and mirrored configurations” (Weygant at 153) does not mean that a
`
`Level 1 (mirroring) RAID is not a single logical unit. Weygant uses the term
`
`“unit” here to mean some sense of “level” in the RAID taxonomy – not in the
`
`sense of a “single logical unit” as in the Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of
`
`RAID. The “combination[] of striped and mirrored configurations” here refers to
`
`IPR2014‐00901 
`
`Preliminary Response 
`
`Page 16 of 60 
`
`

`

`RAID implementations that combine striped and mirrored configurations, such as
`
`RAID 0/1 or RAID 10, which combines RAID levels 0 (striping) and level 1
`
`(mirroring). (See Ex. 2004 at 11 (d