throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 35
`Entered: December 9, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VMWARE, INC., INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
`CORPORATION and ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH
`INSTITUTE,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00901
`Case IPR2014-009491
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1This case was joined with IPR2014-00901 on Jan. 28, 2015 by Order in
`IPR2014-00949, Paper 25.
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`
`A. Background
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On July 21, 2014, VMWare, Inc. (“Petitioner”)2 filed a Second
`
`Corrected Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–9 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,978,346 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’346 patent”). Paper 8 (“Pet.”).
`
`Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (“Patent Owner”)
`
`filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 11. Based on these submissions, on
`
`December 11, 2014, we granted the Petition and instituted trial for claims 1–
`
`9 of the ’346 patent on one of the grounds of unpatentability alleged in the
`
`Petition. Paper 14 (“Institution Decision” or “Dec. Inst.”).
`
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response.
`
`Paper 19 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 28 (“Pet. Reply”).
`
`In addition, the parties rely upon expert testimony. Petitioner proffered the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Robert Horst (“Horst Declaration,” Ex. 1003). Patent
`
`Owner proffered two declarations of Dr. Thomas Conte. First is a
`
`declaration from Dell Inc. v. Electronics and Telecommunications Research
`
`Institute, IPR2013-00635 (“’635 IPR”), a trial directed to the same ’346
`
`patent (“Conte ’635 Declaration,” Ex. 2003). Second is a declaration of Dr.
`
`Conte filed with Patent Owner’s Response (“Conte ’901 Declaration,” Ex.
`
`2301). Patent Owner also filed a declaration of Dr. Randy Katz (“Katz
`
`Declaration,” Ex. 2202), from another inter partes review directed at the
`
`’346 patent, International Business Machines Corp. v. Electronics and
`
`Telecommunications Research Institute, Case IPR2014-00976. A transcript
`
`of Dr. Conte’s deposition (“Conte Dep.,” Ex. 1017) was submitted by
`
`2 International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) and Oracle
`America, Inc. (“Oracle”) are petitioners in IPR2014-00949, which is joined
`to this case, and are included in any reference to “Petitioner.”
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`Petitioner. A transcript of Dr. Horst’s deposition (“Horst Dep.,” Ex. 2302)
`
`was submitted by Patent Owner.
`
`An oral hearing was held on August 28, 2015. The transcript of the
`
`consolidated hearing has been entered into the record. Paper 34 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). We conclude for the
`
`reasons that follow that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that claims 1–9 of the ʼ346 patent are unpatentable.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner advises that the ’346 patent is involved in the following co-
`
`pending district court cases: Safe Storage LLC v. StoneFly, Inc., 1:13-cv-
`
`01152;3 Safe Storage LLC v. Int’l Business Machines Corp., 1:13-cv-01151;
`
`Safe Storage LLC v. Emulex Corporation et al, 1:13-cv-01150; Safe Storage
`
`LLC v. 3PAR Inc., 1:13-cv-01088; Safe Storage LLC v. Oracle America Inc.
`
`et al, 1:13-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., 1:13-cv-00927; Safe Storage LLC
`
`v. Nexsan Corporation, 1:13-cv-00931 ; Safe Storage LLC v. Overland
`
`Storage Inc., 1:13-cv-00932; Safe Storage LLC v. IQSS LLC, 1:13-cv-
`
`00930; Safe Storage LLC v. Infortrend Corporation, 1:13-cv-00929; Safe
`
`Storage LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 1:13-cv-00926; Safe Storage LLC v.
`
`Silicon Graphics Int’l Corp., 1:12-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-01628; Safe Storage LLC v. Hewlett-
`
`
`3 Litigation concluded. Paper 3, 3.
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`Packard Company, 1:12-cv-01626, all pending in the United States District
`
`Court for the District of Delaware. Pet. 1, Paper 3, 2–3.
`
`In a final written decision in the ’635 IPR we determined that claims
`
`1–3 and 5–8 of the ’346 patent had not been shown to be unpatentable. ’635
`
`IPR, Paper 39. We declined to institute inter partes review of the ’346
`
`patent in the following cases: Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., & NetApp,
`
`Inc. v. Electronics & Telecommunications Research Institute, IPR2014-
`
`00152, Paper 12 (PTAB May 16, 2014); Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., &
`
`NetApp, Inc. v. Electronics & Telecommunications Research Institute,
`
`IPR2014-00549, Paper 10 (PTAB Mar. 26, 2015); and International
`
`Business Machines Corp. v. Electronics & Telecommunications Research
`
`Institute, Case IPR2014-00976, Paper 14 (PTAB Dec. 11, 2014)(“’976
`
`IPR”).
`
`C. The ’346 Patent
`
`The ’346 Patent describes an apparatus with “redundant
`
`interconnection between multiple hosts and a redundant array of inexpensive
`
`disks (hereinafter referred to as ‘RAID’).” Ex. 1001, Abstract. As a result
`
`of the redundant interconnection, the apparatus allows increased bandwidth
`
`in the event one of the two RAID controllers 460 and 461 has a failure. Id.
`
`at 3:1–9.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`
`Figure 4 of the ’346 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 4 is a block diagram of a host matching system including RAID 490
`
`and its interconnection to host computers 400–405. Ex. 1001, 2:643:6.
`
`RAID 490 includes two RAID controllers 460, 461 and hubs 440, 441. Id.
`
`at 3:10–18. Each RAID controller includes a pair of network interface
`
`controllers. For example, RAID controller 460 includes network interface
`
`controllers 470, 471, and RAID controller 461 includes network interface
`
`controllers 480, 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 and to network interface controllers (470, 471, 480, 481) of
`
`RAID controllers 460, 461. Id. at 3:31–35.
`
`The ’346 patent describes that the result is two independent networks
`
`with twice the bandwidth of a single network and a “communication
`
`passage” between the two RAID controllers. Id. at 3:62–64. The
`
`communication passage creates a “fault tolerant function” should one of
`
`RAID controllers 460 or 461 fail. Id. at 3:64–66. According to Figure 4,
`
`communications line 450 interconnects network interface controller 480 of
`
`RAID controller 461 and network interface controller 470 of RAID
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`controller 460. Id. at 4:2–6; Fig. 4. Then, RAID controller 461 may send
`
`information to RAID controller 460. Id. In like manner, network interface
`
`controller 471 of RAID controller 460 may be connected over
`
`communications lines to network interface controller 481 of RAID controller
`
`461, allowing RAID controller 460 to send information to RAID controller
`
`461. Id. at 3:66–4:2.
`
`By the arrangement described, the apparatus continues to operate in
`
`the event either RAID controller 460 or 461 has an “occurrence of an error.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:19–25. The interconnected network interface controller of the
`
`operational RAID controller assumes the functions of the network interface
`
`controller of the failed RAID controller. Id.
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`
`Claims 1 and 9, the two independent claims of the challenged claims,
`
`are reproduced below:
`
`1. An apparatus for a redundant interconnection between
`multiple hosts and a RAID, comprising:
`
` a
`
` first RAID controlling units and a second RAID controlling
`unit for processing a requirement of numerous host computers,
`the first RAID controlling unit including a first network
`controlling unit and a second network controlling unit, and the
`second RAID controlling unit including a third network
`controlling unit and a fourth network controlling unit; and
`
` a
`
` plurality of connection units for connecting the first RAID
`controlling units and the second RAID controlling unit to the
`numerous host computers, wherein the first RAID controlling
`unit and the second RAID controlling unit directly exchange
`information with the numerous host computers through the
`plurality of connecting units, and the first network controlling
`unit exchanges information with the fourth network controlling
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`
`unit, and the second network controlling unit exchanges
`information with the third network controlling unit.
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:7–26.
`
`
`9. An apparatus for a redundant interconnection between
`multiple host computers and a RAID, the apparatus comprising:
`
` a
`
` plurality of connection units for connecting the host
`computers and the RAID;
`
` a
`
` first and a second RAID controllers, included in the RAID,
`each of which having a first network interface controller and a
`second network interface controller for processing requests
`from the plurality of the host computers connected through the
`plurality of the connection units,
`
`wherein the first network interface controller in the first RAID
`controller supplies data to the host computers connected
`through the plurality of connection units and processes
`information transmitted from the second network interface
`controller in the second RAID controller,
`
`wherein the first network interface controller in the second
`RAID controller supplies data to the host computers connected
`through the plurality of connection units and processes
`information transmitted from the second network interface
`controller in the first RAID controller,
`
`wherein the second network interface controller in the first
`RAID controller is used for fault tolerance by performing
`functions of the first network interface controller in the second
`RAID controller when the second RAID controller is faulty,
`and
`
`wherein the second network interface controller in the second
`RAID controller is used for fault tolerance by performing
`functions of the first network interface controller in the first
`RAID controller when the first RAID controller is faulty, and
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`
`wherein the first network controlling unit in the first RAID
`controlling unit exchanges information with the second network
`controlling unit in the second RAID controlling unit, and the
`second network controlling unit in the first RAID controlling
`unit exchanges information with the first network controlling
`unit in the second RAID controlling unit.
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:20–59.
`
`
`E. Grounds Upon Which Trial was Instituted
`
`Inter partes review was instituted on the following grounds: 1–9 as
`
`obvious over Mylex4 and Hathorn.5 Dec. Inst. 22.
`
`F. Claim construction
`
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
`
`given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–76 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`
`(Claim Construction). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard,
`
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the
`
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a
`
`special definition or other consideration, “limitations are not to be read into
`
`
`4 Kevin J. Smith, Mylex Corp., STORAGE AREA NETWORKS; UNCLOGGING
`LANS AND IMPROVING DATA ACCESSIBILITY, published May 29, 1998
`(“Mylex,” Ex. 1006).
`5 US 5,574,950 to R. G. Hathorn et al., issued Nov. 12, 1996 (“Hathorn,”
`Ex. 1006).
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`1. Terms Disputed After the Decision on Institution
`
`Patent Owner identifies three terms for construction in its Response.
`
`PO Resp. 12–22. Petitioner contests two of the terms, “RAID” and “hub and
`
`switch.” Pet. Reply 2–7.
`
`a. “RAID” (Claims 1 and 9)
`
`In the Final Written Decision in the ’635 IPR (“’635 Final Decision”
`
`or “’635 Final Dec.”), we construed “RAID,” as the term is used in the ’346
`
`patent, to mean “a single logical unit for mass storage using multiple
`
`physical disk drives.” ’635 Final Dec. 9. In the Petition, prior to the ’635
`
`Final Decision, Petitioner asserted that “RAID” should be construed as
`
`“redundant array of inexpensive disks.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1001, Abstract,
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14–16).
`
`Both Patent Owner’s Response and Petitioner’s Reply were filed after
`
`the ’635 Final Decision. For purposes of this case, Patent Owner accepts the
`
`construction from the ’635 Final Decision, providing facts and arguments
`
`supporting that construction. PO Resp. 12–16. Petitioner’s Reply continues
`
`to urge adoption of its proposed construction from the originally filed
`
`Petition. Pet. Reply 2–6.
`
`The written description of the ’346 patent restates the acronym for
`
`RAID, but otherwise lacks additional description of RAID or its
`
`functionality. Consistently throughout the written description, RAID is
`
`referred to in the singular, i.e., “the apparatus for a redundant
`
`interconnection between multiple hosts and a RAID comprises a plurality of
`
`RAID controllers.” Ex. 1001, 2:16–18 (emphasis added). The claims also
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`recite “a RAID.” Id. at 5:7–8. Figure 4 of the ’346 patent shows RAID 490
`
`as a single component within a box which includes two RAID controllers
`
`460 and 461. Similarly, the ’346 patent represents the prior art RAID as a
`
`single component. Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, element 130; Fig. 2, element 240; Fig.
`
`3, element 340. Neither party relies on the prosecution history (Exhibits
`
`1002, 2001), and our independent review of that history failed to reveal any
`
`additional insight as to the term’s meaning.
`
`Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Conte, testified that a RAID is a mass
`
`storage device built from multiple, physical disk drives. Ex. 2003 ¶ 18, Ex.
`
`2301 ¶ 30. Patent Owner and Dr. Conte both point to dictionary evidence to
`
`respectively argue and opine that a RAID is a “single logical drive.” PO
`
`Resp. 14, Ex. 2301 ¶ 30 (citing Exs. 2004,6 20057). That a RAID is built
`
`from multiple, physical disk drives is uncontroverted. That a RAID is a
`
`single logical unit is supported by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Horst, who
`
`testified that “[a] RAID array needs to be able to present a set of drives as a
`
`single logical unit, but it does not always have to present a single logical
`
`unit.” Ex. 2302, 16:14–21.
`
`Although the two dictionary definitions cited by Patent Owner and Dr.
`
`Conte are found in dictionaries published after the foreign priority date of
`
`the ’346 patent, they further substantiate the proposition that those of
`
`ordinary skill generally refer to RAID as a single logical unit. Webster’s, for
`
`example, generally defines RAID as proposed by Petitioner. Ex. 2004, 308.
`
`However, Webster’s proceeds to define various levels of RAID, e.g., RAID
`
`0, 1, 2, 5, and 10, all including as part of the definition a “single logical
`
`
`6 Webster’s Computer Dictionary (9th ed. 2001)(“Webster’s”).
`7 Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002).
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`drive.” Id. Similarly, the Microsoft Computer Dictionary’s definition of
`
`RAID, which does not define levels of RAID, states that the “data is
`
`distributed across a group of computer disk drives that function as a single
`
`storage unit.” Ex. 2005, 437.
`
`The prior art also supports a construction of RAID as being a “single
`
`logical drive.” Weygant discloses that a RAID is a single logical unit, but
`
`also in “various combinations of striped and mirrored configurations.” Ex.
`
`2101, 153. 8 Chen’s discussion of RAID technology states that the problem
`
`of obtaining high performance is addressed by “arrays, which organize
`
`multiple independent disks into a large, high-performance logical disk.” Ex.
`
`2102, 2 (emphasis added).
`
`In further support of its position that our construction from the ’635
`
`Final Decision is correct, Patent Owner presents evidence not of record in
`
`the ’635 IPR, including DeKoning (U.S. Patent No. 6,073,218, Ex. 1010).
`
`Patent Owner quotes from DeKoning as explaining that a RAID controller
`
`“makes the subsystem [RAID] appear to the host computer as a single,
`
`highly reliable, high capacity disk drive.” PO Resp. 15–16 (citing Ex.
`
`1010, 1:65–2:14).
`
`Patent Owner quotes from the petition in the ’976 IPR (Ex. 2201),
`
`where Petitioners IBM and Oracle argued that “the Chong reference (U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,070,251; Ex. 2303) discloses a RAID ‘because the two data
`
`storage devices appear to the hosts as a single, reliable drive.’” PO Resp. 16
`
`(citing Ex. 2201, 13). Patent Owner also points to testimony from the Katz
`
`Declaration in the ’976 IPR that Chong’s alleged “combination of data
`
`
`8 Page reference is to the actual page number of Weygant and Chen and not
`Patent Owner’s exhibit number.
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`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.” Id. at 16
`
`(citing Ex. 2202 ¶ 36)(emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner argues for its proposed construction, Redundant Array of
`
`Inexpensive Disks, is based on the use of quotation marks around “RAID” as
`
`used in the ’346 patent. Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:9–10). We are
`
`not persuaded that the use of the acronym in the Specification dictates that
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of RAID is the words of the acronym.
`
`For example, the Specification describes RAID as a single item, i.e., as a
`
`“single logical entity.”
`
`Petitioner argues that the construction of RAID from the ’635 Final
`
`Decision is incorrect for a number of reasons. Petitioner points out that the
`
`Webster’s definition does not support the “single logical drive” construction
`
`of RAID. Pet. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 2004, 308). As discussed above,
`
`Webster’s describes RAID generally as including levels, then defines the
`
`levels separately, each as including a “single logical drive.” However, that
`
`the general RAID definition and the definition of RAID 10 from Webster’s,
`
`or any other dictionary, do not include the “single logical drive,” is not
`
`dispositive. Rather, we must look to how the person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand a RAID. See Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1257. The
`
`evidence of what would be understood by one of ordinary skill, as
`
`represented by the testimony of Drs. Horst, Conte, and Katz, and authors
`
`Weygant, Chen, and Chong, is compelling. Petitioner’s argument based on
`
`the Webster’s definition of RAID is, at best, equivocal from an evidentiary
`
`standpoint. Indeed, Petitioner acknowledges that RAID can present as a
`
`“single logical unit [drive].” Pet. Reply 3. We, therefore, are not persuaded
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`that Petitioner has met its burden of proving that the proffered dictionaries
`
`support a broader construction of RAID, i.e., to not be defined as a “single
`
`logical drive.”
`
`Petitioner also submits various arguments concerning Hathorn’s
`
`teachings of the storage devices to inform our analysis of the scope of the
`
`term “RAID.” Pet. Reply 36. These arguments do not persuade us to
`
`adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction. First, Petitioner’s arguments beg
`
`for a comparison of the definition of RAID to the storage devices disclosed
`
`in Hathorn. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments for three
`
`reasons.
`
`First, we are tasked in this Decision with determining whether
`
`Hathorn, the asserted prior art, discloses a “RAID.” Therefore, relying on
`
`Hathorn to guide the definition of the term is putting the cart before the
`
`horse. Second, Hathorn’s teaching of a RAID is inconclusive. Hathorn
`
`statement of a RAID is limited to a discussion in the Background of the
`
`Invention where a “redundant array of inexpensive devices (RAID)” is
`
`discussed as a data back-up alternative. Ex. 1005, 2:47. Hathorn provides
`
`no further instruction as to whether the disclosed disks operate in a RAID
`
`configuration.
`
`Third, Hathorn confirms our analysis of the scope of the term RAID
`
`including a single logical unit. Hathorn appears to dismiss the use of a
`
`RAID configuration and single volume of mirrored data for use in disaster
`
`recovery of an entire system or site. Id. at 2:1924. For example, Hathorn
`
`states that the reason the aforementioned back-up solutions (including a
`
`RAID configuration) are useful only for device failures is that “the
`
`secondary data has the same volume serial numbers (VOLSERs) and DASD
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`addresses as the primary data.” Id. at 2:1618. That is, a RAID-based back-
`
`up had the feature of appearing as a single unit. Hence, Hathorn focuses its
`
`disclosure of the invention as multiple DASDs with emphasis on remote
`
`dual copies. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 5:2536, 6:2139 (describing “remote dual
`
`copy systems” and referring to Figure 2 depicting multiple primary DASDs).
`
`9 We also note that despite RAID being known at the time, Hathorn does
`
`not mention a RAID in describing the Hathorn remote dual copy system.
`
`Petitioner concludes with an argument that our construction of RAID
`
`from the ’635 Final Decision “excludes a fundamental aspect of a
`
`RAID―redundant storage―yet includes terms such as ‘single logical unit,’
`
`‘mass storage,’ and ‘physical disk drives’ that are found nowhere in the ’346
`
`patent.” Pet. Reply 6. Petitioner’s argument does not cite any supporting
`
`authority and, accordingly, is unpersuasive. Further, while the Specification
`
`is important in our construction, we still need to consider how RAID would
`
`be understood by the person of ordinary skill. See Translogic, 504 F.3d at
`
`1257.
`
`Accordingly, having considered the claim construction arguments
`
`made by Petitioner in its Reply regarding Hathorn, and weighing that against
`
`the evidence presented by Patent Owner, including the testimony of Dr.
`
`Conte, which we credit, we conclude that a RAID would have been
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a customary
`
`meaning of “a single logical unit for mass storage using multiple physical
`
`disk drives.”
`
`
`9 Petitioner’s arguments regarding Hathorn’s allege disclosure of a RAID are
`considered in more detail in the analysis section of this Decision.
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`
`b. “connection unit/hub/switch” (Claim 5)
`
`In the ’635 Final Decision, we found that, consistent with the
`
`definition provided in the Specification, “connection unit” is “a hub or
`
`switch.” ’635 Final Dec. 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:13–18). We noted that
`
`Figure 4 of the ’346 patent shows components 440 and 441 labeled as a
`
`“HUB OR SWITCH.” Id. Petitioner proposed this construction in the
`
`Petition and in the Reply. Pet. 7, Pet. Reply 6–7. Thus, we determined that
`
`the Specification treats “hub” and “switch” as equivalents. ’635 Final Dec.
`
`14.
`
`Relying on the Conte Declaration, Patent Owner argues the person of
`
`skill in the art would view “hub” as different from “switch.” PO Resp. 20
`
`(citing Ex. 2301 ¶¶ 58–59). Patent Owner acknowledges that the ’346 patent
`
`equates hub and switch, but argues that they are not the same “for all
`
`purposes.” Id. at 21. If “hub” were intended to mean “hub or switch,”
`
`Patent Owner argues that instead of “HUB OR SWITCH” as the label for
`
`connection units 440 and 441 in Figure 4, the drawings would have just used
`
`the word “hub.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner argues our construction based on the Specification
`
`“does not so clearly redefine the term ‘hub’ so as to conflate terms that have
`
`different meanings.” PO Resp. 21–22 (citing Renishaw PLC v. Marposs
`
`Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Patent Owner
`
`also argues against our construction based on claim differentiation, arguing
`
`claim 5 refers to “hub equipment” whereas claims 6 and 7 refer to “network
`
`switch equipment.” Claims 5 and 6 are otherwise identical, claim 7 differing
`
`with respect to another limitation not at issue.
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. It is always
`
`necessary to review the Specification to determine whether the inventor has
`
`used any terms in a manner inconsistent with their ordinary meaning. See
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).10
`
`The claims must be read in view of the Specification. Id. Patent Owner’s
`
`evidence of how a person of ordinary skill would understand the terms is
`
`that the terms, though different, are both “network interconnection devices.”
`
`Ex. 2301 ¶¶ 58–59. Additionally, Patent Owner’s expert acknowledged
`
`“hub” and “switch” may be used interchangeably. See Pet. Reply 7 (citing
`
`Ex. 2302, 30:16–18). The Specification recognizes this as well, stating that
`
`“hubs 440, 441 are provided to connect a system connected to these hubs by
`
`one network and maintain the network …, and it can be as a hub or a switch.
`
`Hereinafter, they are named a ‘hub’ altogether.” Id. at 6–7 (citing Ex.
`
`1001, 3:13–18).
`
`Thus, consistent with the Specification and our construction from the
`
`’635 Final Decision, “connection unit” is “a hub or switch.”
`
`c. “exchange/exchanges information” (Claims 1 and 9)
`
`In the ’635 Final Decision, we interpreted “exchange” and “exchanges
`
`information” according to their ordinary sense: to transmit and receive
`
`information reciprocally.11 ’635 Final Dec. 12. The Petitioner proposed this
`
`construction in the Petition. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14–16).
`
`
`10 While district courts do not apply our broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard in infringement cases, the Federal Circuit is our reviewing court
`and this principle is universal.
`11 Definition exchange (vb) (3), WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL
`DICTIONARY, UNABRIDGED (1993), available at
`http://lionreference.chadwyck.com (Dictionaries/Webster’s Dictionary)
`(Exhibit 3001).
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner neither agrees or disagrees with the construction from
`
`the ’635 Final Decision. PO Resp. 17–19. Instead, based on the language
`
`differences in claims 1, 4, and 9, Patent Owner contends there are
`
`differences in how “network interface controllers” exchange information.
`
`Id. at 17. Patent Owner does not raise any issue as to how our construction
`
`of “exchanges information” should change as a result.
`
`Consistent with our construction from the ’635 Final Decision, we
`
`construe “exchange/exchanges information” to mean “to transmit and
`
`receive information reciprocally.”
`
`2. Terms not Disputed After the Decision on Institution
`
`The following two terms were construed in the Institution Decision
`
`but not addressed in Patent Owner’s Response nor Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`a. “RAID controller/RAID controlling unit” (Claims 1 and 9)
`
`In the’635 Final Decision, we construed “RAID controlling unit,” as
`
`the term is used in the ’346 patent, to mean “a component that controls
`
`operation of the RAID.” ’635 Final Dec. 10–11. Petitioner proposed this
`
`construction in the Petition. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14–16).
`
`Neither the Response nor the Petitioner’s Reply propose any
`
`alternative construction. Accordingly, applying the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation to the term RAID controlling unit, we construe “RAID
`
`controlling unit” to mean “a component that controls operation of the
`
`RAID.”
`
`b. “network interface controller”/”network controlling
`unit”/”network interface controlling unit” (Claims 1 and 9)
`
`In the ’635 Final Decision we interpreted “network controlling unit.”
`
`as “a component, connected to a network, for providing communication over
`
`the network.” ’635 Final Dec. 12–14. Petitioner treats the terms “network
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`interface controller,” “network controlling unit,” and “network interface
`
`controlling unit” as equivalents and urges they should be construed
`
`identically. Pet. 7, see also Prelim. Resp. 20 (“synonymous phrases
`
`‘network controlling unit’ and ‘network interface controller’”).
`
`The Specification describes each “network interface controller” as
`
`having a counterpart “network interface controller,” each “network interface
`
`controller” associated with a separate RAID controller. Ex. 1001, 2:2630.
`
`Furthermore,
`
`information from a second network interface controller 622 of a
`first RAID controller 620 is sent to a first network interface
`controller 632 of a second RAID controller 630, and
`information from a second network interface controller 632 of
`the second RAID controller 630 is transmitted to a first network
`interface controller 621 of the first RAID controller 620.
`
`Id. at 4:4046. Thus, we construe “network controlling unit” and its
`
`equivalents to mean “a component, connected to a network, for providing
`
`communication over the network.”
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 19 of the ’346 patent are obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mylex and Hathorn. Pet. 1742. To support
`
`this position, Petitioner relies on the testimony of Dr. Horst. Ex. 1003
`
`¶¶ 56138.
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`
`A. Overview of Prior Art
`
`1. Mylex
`
`Mylex generally describes Storage Area Networks (“SAN”) and
`
`associated architecture of such networks. Ex. 1006, 4.12 Storage Area
`
`Networks can be configured with switched fabrics or hubs and switches to
`
`exchange data between nodes of the network. Id. at 8.
`
`Figure 6 of Mylex is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 6 shows that switches are used to create fibre channel fabric. Id.
`
`Mylex describes that hub-connected Storage Area Networks bandwidth per
`
`node decreases as more nodes are added while bandwidth of fabric
`
`
`
`connected nodes increases as nodes are added. Id.
`
`Figure 7 of Mylex is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`12 Page references are to Mylex page numbers at the bottom right corner of
`each page. Petitioner uses the same numbers and not the exhibit page
`numbers centered at the bottom of the page.
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`Figure 7 shows a four node cluster with shared access to RAID arrays. Id.
`
`at 9. Mylex describes that external RAID controllers can be used in a write-
`
`back caching scheme to protect data. Id. at 12.
`
`Mylex controllers are linked by a private network used to transmit
`
`“I’m alive” heartbeat messages. Ex. 1006, 17. The absence of heartbeat
`
`messages signals that one of the controllers is off-line and the remaining
`
`controller immediately initiates a failover operation and then begins
`
`servicing I/O requests directed to itself and its off-line partner to provide
`
`non-stop access to data. Id. Figure 17 of Mylex is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 17, for fibre controllers, Mylex describes that if a
`
`controller fail

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