`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00949
`Patent No. 6,978,346 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTERNATIONAL
`BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
`AND
`ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH
`INSTITUTE
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2014-00949
`
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`c/o Office of the General Counsel
`Madison Building East, 1 OB20
`600 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
`
`
`Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c) and 142 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 90.2(a), that Petitioners International Business Machines Corporation and
`
`Oracle America, Inc. (collectively “Petitioners”) hereby appeal to the United States
`
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Final Written Decision entered
`
`on December 9, 2015 (Paper 35 in IPR2014-00901, to which this case was joined
`
`by Order dated January 28, 2015, Paper 25), and from all underlying orders,
`
`decisions, rulings and opinions.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a)(3)(ii), Petitioners further indicate
`
`that the issues on appeal include, but are not limited to (1) the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board’s determination that claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346 (“the
`
`’346 patent”) are not rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Kevin J. Smith,
`
`Mylex Corp., STORAGE AREA NETWORKS; UNCLOGGING LANS AND
`
`IMPROVING DATA ACCESSIBILITY, published May 29, 1998, in view of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,574,950, (2) the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s claim construction
`
`of certain terms in claims 1-9 of the ’346 patent, and (3) any factual findings,
`
`conclusions of law, or other determinations supporting or related to those issues, as
`
`well as all other issues decided adversely to Petitioners in any orders, decisions,
`
`2
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2014-00949
`
`rulings, and opinions. The appeal may also raise the issue of whether obviousness
`
`under 35 USC § 103 requires an express disclosure of a motivation to combine
`
`prior art systems as well as a teaching in the prior art of how to physically combine
`
`said systems. The appeal may also raise the issue of whether the Board deprived
`
`Petitioners of their right to a hearing on certain grounds of unpatentability asserted
`
`in the Petition on the basis that such grounds of unpatentability were redundant to
`
`the grounds upon which the Board instituted trial.
`
`Simultaneous with this submission, a copy of this Notice of Appeal is being
`
`filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In addition, three copies of this
`
`Notice of Appeal, along with the required docketing fees, are being filed with the
`
`Clerk’s Office for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Todd M. Friedman
`Todd M. Friedman
`Reg. No. 42,559
`todd.friedman@kirkland.com
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Fax: (212) 446-4900
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners International
`Business Machines Corporation and
`Oracle America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Dated: January 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2014-00949
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq. and 42.105(b),
`
`that on January 28, 2016, a complete and entire copy of this Notice of Appeal was
`
`provided via email to the Patent Owner by serving the correspondence address of
`
`record as follows:
`
`
`
`Matthew C. Phillips
`Derek Meeker
`Renaissance IP Law Group LLP
`9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 560
`Portland OR 97223
`matthew.phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com
`derek.meeker@renaissanceiplaw.com
`
`Alexander C.D. Giza
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`agiza@raklaw.com
`
`4
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2014-00949
`
`
`I hereby certify that, in addition to being filed electronically through the
`
`Board’s PRPS System, the original version of the foregoing Notice of Appeal was
`
`served by hand on this 28th day of January, 2016, with the Director of the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office, at the following address:
`
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`c/o Office of the General Counsel
`Madison Building East, 10B20
`600 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
`
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing Notice of Appeal was filed electronically
`
`on this 28th day of January, 2016, with the Clerk’s Office of the United States
`
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, at the following address:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`717 Madison Place, N.W., Suite 401
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Todd M. Friedman
`Todd M. Friedman
`Reg. No. 42,559
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`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, 2:643:6.
`
`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 36. 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, 2:47. 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 2:1924. 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 2:1618. 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, 5:2536, 6:2139 (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