`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`
`Trial Number: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`Filed: December 29, 2000
`
`Issued: December 20, 2005
`
`Inventor(s): Sung-Hoon Baek, Joong-
`Bae Kim, Yong-Youn Kim
`
`Assignee: Electronics and
`Telecommunications Research Institute
`
`Title: Apparatus For Redundant
`Interconnection Between Multiple Hosts
`And RAID
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Panel: To Be Assigned
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Review
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ............ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest ................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ............................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-Up Counsel and
`Service Information ............................................................................... 2
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ......................... 2
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(a) ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`IV.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b): IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested ........... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Specific Art and Statutory
`Ground(s) on Which the Challenge is Based ........................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ..................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Challenged Claims are
`Unpatentable .......................................................................................... 7
`
`E.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge .................. 7
`
`V.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE. ................................... 8
`
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’346 Patent ...................... 8
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’346 Patent ...................... 9
`
`Summary of Invalidity Arguments ...................................................... 10
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid in View of the Prior Art ............ 12
`
`The Challenged Claims are Anticipated by the
`Grounds 1 & 2:
`Chong Reference ............................................................ 12
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`i
`
`2
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`On behalf of International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) and
`
`Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) (collectively “Petitioners”) and in accordance with
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, inter partes review (“IPR”) is respectfully
`
`requested of Claims 1-9 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`(“the ’346 Patent”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1004.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1), the mandatory notices identified in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b) are provided below as part of this Petition.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest
`
`A.
`IBM and Oracle are the real parties-in-interest.
`B.
`The ’346 patent is the subject of a number of civil actions in the District
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters
`
`Court for the District of Delaware: Civil Action Nos. 1-13-cv-01152; 1-13-cv-
`
`01151; 1-13-cv-01150; 1-13-cv-01088; 1-13-cv-01089; 1-13-cv-01090; 1-13-cv-
`
`00928; 1-13-cv-00927; 1-13-cv-00931; 1-13-cv-00932; 1-13-cv-00930; 1-13-cv-
`
`00929; 1-13-cv-00926; 1-12-cv-01629; 1-12-cv-01625; 1-12-cv-01627; 1-12-cv-
`
`01624; 1-12-cv-01628; and 1-12-cv-01626.
`
`The ’346 patent is also the subject of IPR Case Nos. IPR2013-00635,
`
`IPR2014-00901, and IPR2014-00949.
`
`
`
`1
`
`3
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-Up Counsel and
`Service Information
`
`The Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`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
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Powers of Attorney from Oracle and IBM
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Gregory S. Arovas, Reg. No. 38,818
`greg.arovas@kirkland.com
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`
`accompany this Petition. Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up
`
`counsel. The Petitioners consent to electronic service by email at IBM-Safe-
`
`Storage-KEService@kirkland.com.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`The undersigned authorize the Office to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 506092. Review of nine (9)
`
`claims is requested, and thus no excess claim fees are required. The undersigned
`
`further authorize payment for any additional fees that may be due in connection
`
`with this Petition to be charged to the above-referenced Deposit Account.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)
`Petitioners certify that the ’346 Patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the Challenged
`
`
`
`2
`
`4
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`Claims on the grounds identified in the Petition. The Petition is filed within one
`
`year of service of the complaints against Petitioners.1
`
`IV. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B): IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`Petitioners request that the Challenged Claims be found unpatentable.
`
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested
`Petitioners request IPR of the Challenged Claims.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Specific Art and Statutory
`Ground(s) on Which the Challenge is Based
`
`IPR of the Challenged Claims is requested in view of the following:
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,070,251, to Chong (“Chong US”). Chong US was filed
`on June 26, 1997, and issued on May 30, 2000. Chong US is prior art
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e)2 and 102(a), and is attached hereto as Ex.
`1005.
`• A counterpart to Chong US also published as Japanese Pat. No.
`JPH11120092A to Chong (“Chong JP”). Chong JP was published on
`April 30, 1999. Chong JP is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and is
`attached hereto as Ex. 1006. A certified translation of Chong JP is
`attached hereto as Ex. 1007.
`
`1 The complaint against Oracle (Case No. 13-cv-01089) was served on June 19,
`
`2013. The complaint against IBM (Case No. 13-cv-01151) was served on July
`
`1, 2013.
`
`2 Reference to 35 U.S.C. § 102 throughout this Petition is to the pre-AIA version
`
`
`
`of this provision, applicable to the ’346 Patent.
`
`
`
`3
`
`5
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ’346 Patent
`Claims 1-9 are anticipated by Chong US under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`Claims 1-9 are anticipated by Chong JP under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`
`C.
`A claim subject to IPR is given its “broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`
`of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`Petitioners expressly reserve the right to submit constructions for the claim terms
`
`at issue in the co-pending cases in the District of Delaware, under the applicable
`
`claim construction standard.
`
`Petitioners submit, for purposes of this IPR only, the following claim terms
`
`should be construed as follows:
`
`Claim Term
`
`“RAID”
`“RAID controller” / “RAID
`controlling unit”
`“exchange information” / “exchanges
` information”
`
`“connection unit”
`/
`controller”
`“network
`interface
`“network controlling unit” / “network
`interface controlling unit”
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`“redundant array of inexpensive disks”
`“a component that controls operation of
` the RAID”
`“to transmit and receive information
`reciprocally”
`
`“a hub or switch”
`“the part of a RAID controller that
`allows
`the RAID
`controller
`to
`communicate with
`the
`‘connection
`units’”
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`6
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`Four of the five constructions were adopted by the PTAB in co-pending IPR
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00635, Paper 19 at 7-11. For the purposes of prior petitions,
`
`the PTAB decided no construction was necessary for the “network interface
`
`controller” / “network controlling unit” / “network interface controlling unit”
`
`limitations. Case Nos. IPR2013-00635 at 11; IPR2014-00152 at 11.
`
`1.
`
`“RAID” (Claims 1-9)
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the
`
`term “RAID” should be construed as a “redundant array of independent disks.”
`
`This construction is consistent with the plain meaning, in the context of the ’346
`
`Patent, and is supported by the ’346 Patent’s specification. “RAID” is understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill as an acronym for “redundant array of inexpensive disks.”
`
`(Ex. 1004 at Abstract; Ex. 1001, ¶ 30.)
`
`2.
`
`“RAID controller” / “RAID controlling unit” (Claims 1-9)
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the
`
`phrases “RAID controller” and “RAID controlling unit” should both be construed
`
`as “a component that controls operation of the RAID.” (Ex. 1001, ¶ 30.) This
`
`construction is consistent with the plain meaning, in the context of the ’346 Patent,
`
`and is supported by the ’346 Patent’s specification.
`
`
`
`5
`
`7
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`3.
`
`“exchange information” / “exchanges information” (Claims 1-9)
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the
`
`phrases “exchange information” and “exchanges information” should both be
`
`construed to mean “to transmit and receive information reciprocally.” (Ex. 1001, ¶
`
`30, 32.). In Case No. IPR2013-00635, the PTAB rejected the Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that “exchanges information” means information is exchanged via one or
`
`more of the connection units, pointing out that the Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`limitation was unsupported by the claim language and the specification of the ’346
`
`patent. Petitioners’ construction here is consistent with the PTAB’s construction
`
`and the plain meaning in the context of the ’346 Patent, and is supported by the
`
`’346 Patent’s specification.
`
`4.
`
` “connection unit” (Claims 1-9)
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the
`
`phrase “connection unit” should be construed as “a hub or switch.” (Ex. 1001, ¶
`
`30.) This construction is consistent with the plain meaning, in the context of the
`
`’346 Patent, and is supported by the ’346 Patent’s specification. Specifically, the
`
`specification uses the term hub to refer to a hub or switch. (Ex. 1004 at 3:13-18.)
`
`
`
`6
`
`8
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`5.
`
`“network interface controller” / “network controlling unit” / “network
`
`interface controlling unit” (Claims 1-9)
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the
`
`phrases “network interface controller,” “network controlling unit,” and “network
`
`interface controlling unit” should be construed as “the part of a RAID controller
`
`that allows the RAID controller to communicate with the ‘connection units.’” (Ex.
`
`1001, ¶ 30-31). This construction is consistent with the plain meaning, in the
`
`context of the ’346 Patent, and is supported by the ’346 Patent’s specification.
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Challenged Claims are
`Unpatentable
`
`A detailed explanation of how the construed Challenged Claims are
`
`unpatentable, including the identification of where each element is found in the
`
`prior art, is provided in the discussion and claim charts comparing the Challenged
`
`Claims to the prior art in Section V.D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge
`
`E.
`An Appendix of Exhibits identifying all exhibits supporting this Petition,
`
`and assigning them exhibit numbers, is attached. Additionally, the relevance of the
`
`evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the
`
`evidence that support the challenge, may be found in Section V.D.
`
`Petitioners submit a declaration of Randy H. Katz in support of this Petition
`
`in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.68. (Ex. 1001.)
`
`
`
`7
`
`9
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE.
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’346 Patent
`The ’346 patent relates to a system with “redundant interconnection between
`
`multiple host computers and a RAID.” (Ex. 1004, 2:12-13) The system includes
`
`two RAID controllers. Each RAID controller has two network interface
`
`controllers (“NICs”). The system, depicted in Fig. 4, has two hub/switch devices:
`
`
`Fig. 4 is a block diagram of a system including RAID 490 and its
`
`interconnection to host computers 400-405. (Id., 2:64-3:6.) RAID 490 includes
`
`two RAID controllers 460 and 461 and hubs 440 and 441. (Id., 3:10-18.) Each
`
`RAID controller includes a pair of network interface controllers. For example,
`
`RAID controller 460 includes network interface controllers 470 and 471, and
`
`RAID controller 461 includes network interface controllers 480 and 481. (Id.,
`
`
`
`8
`
`10
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`3:11-13.) Each host computer has its own network interface controller (410 to
`
`415), which connects the host computer through the hubs to the network interface
`
`controllers (470, 471, 480, 481) of RAID controllers 460 and 461. (Id., 3:31-35.)
`
`The structure illustrated in Fig. 4 provides a “communication passage
`
`between two RAID controllers.” (Id., 3:64-65.) For example, in the Fig. 4
`
`embodiment, RAID controller 460 can send data to RAID controller 461 via NIC
`
`470, switch/hub 440, and NIC 480. (Id., 3:66-4:12.)
`
`The ’346 Patent purports to provide a “fault tolerant function” with the
`
`disclosed redundant system of RAID controllers and network interface controllers
`
`(Id., 3:63-66.) A RAID controller “having [an] error occurrence is removed from
`
`the network” and a NIC from the other RAID controller “takes over a function” of
`
`a NIC on the faulty RAID controller. (Id., 4:19-25.)
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’346 Patent
`
`B.
`The ’346 Patent’s prosecution included two rejections and two amendments.
`
`The Examiner initially rejected the claims over U.S. Patent No. 5,812,754
`
`(hereinafter “Lui”). (Ex. 1008, pgs. 4-9). In response, the Applicants amended
`
`claim 1 and added a new claim that would eventually issue as claim 9. (Id., pgs.
`
`13-18). The examiner issued a Final Office Action again rejecting all then-pending
`
`claims over Lui. (Id., pgs. 30-38). In response, the Applicants amended claims 1
`
`and 9 and argued that Lui did not teach the “two network interface controlling
`
`
`
`9
`
`11
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`units included in each RAID controller” element of the claims. (Id., pgs. 41-49).
`
`The Applicants further argued that Lui did not teach “the first network controlling
`
`unit exchanges information with the fourth network controlling unit and the second
`
`network controlling unit exchanges information with the third network controlling
`
`unit” elements. (Id., pgs. 48-49). The Examiner allowed the claims without a
`
`reason for allowance. (Id., pgs. 53-54).
`
`Summary of Invalidity Arguments
`
`C.
`As explained further below in Grounds 1 & 2, Chong US and Chong JP
`
`represent separate grounds on which Petitioners base their challenge, but the two
`
`references contain substantially identical relevant disclosure. When discussing
`
`Petitioners’ challenges below, “the Chong Reference” refers either to Chong US or
`
`Chong JP, and relevant citations to both are provided.
`
`The Chong Reference discloses a redundant storage system identical to that
`
`disclosed and claimed in the ’346 patent. The Chong Reference system includes a
`
`storage device, two storage controllers, and a plurality of connecting units, which
`
`connect the storage controllers with a plurality of host devices. (Ex. 1005, Fig. 3,
`
`2:60-3:11, 4:15-19, 4:26-29, 4:50-51; Ex. 1007, Fig. 3 ¶¶ 8-9, 12-14). Each
`
`storage controller further includes two sets of hardware -- GBICs (Gigabit
`
`Interface Converters) and PSOCs (Serial Optical Converters for PCI Buses) -- for
`
`implementing a port, or network interface controller, to interface with the
`
`
`
`10
`
`12
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`connecting units and the other storage controller. (Ex. 1005, Fig. 3, 2:67-3:6; 4:25-
`
`28; Ex. 1007, Fig. 3 ¶¶ 8-9, 12). In normal operation, each controller serves as a
`
`primary for one host, and a secondary for another. (Ex. 1005, 4:34-39, 4:50-51;
`
`Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 12-13). In that mode, one set of GBICs and PSOCs in each controller
`
`exchanges information with host devices and processes commands, while the other
`
`set of GBICs and PSOCs is disabled from processing host commands. (Ex. 1005,
`
`3:31-36, 4:26-28, 4:43-51; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 9-10, 12-13). The primary GBIC/PSOC
`
`set in each controller exchanges information for data synchronization purposes
`
`with the corresponding secondary GBIC/PSOC set in the other controller when
`
`there is no fault. (Ex. 1005, Fig. 3, 3:50-67, 4:24-28, 4:50-51; Ex. 1007, Fig. 3, ¶¶
`
`9-10, 12-13).
`
`The Chong Reference further discloses that each storage controller includes
`
`fail-over software. (Ex. 1005, 3:3-11, 4:26-32; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 8, 12-13). The fail-
`
`over software detects faults in either of the storage controllers or the storage
`
`devices. (Ex. 1005, 3:3-11, 4:26-33, Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 8, 12-13). When there is a
`
`failure, a secondary port in a fully functional controller can perform the functions
`
`of a primary port in a faulty controller. (Ex. 1005, 4:43-5:3; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 13-14).
`
`Annotated Fig. 3 from the Chong Reference below shows many of the structural
`
`claim elements.
`
`
`
`11
`
`13
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`D. The Challenged Claims Are Invalid in View of the Prior Art
`The Petitioners provide a detailed discussion of how the asserted prior art
`
`
`
`references invalidate the Challenged Claims. For ease of review, the Petitioners
`
`underline certain portions of the text presented in the following claim charts. The
`
`Petitioners note, however, that the surrounding text, though not underlined, is
`
`highly relevant to the Petitioners’ challenge, as described in detail herein.
`
`Grounds 1 & 2: The Challenged Claims are Anticipated by the Chong
`Reference
`
`Chong US, entitled “Method And Apparatus For High Availability And
`
`Caching Data Storage Devices,” is assigned on its face to Sun Microsystems, Inc.
`
`Chong JP, similarly entitled “Method And Apparatus For High Availability And
`
`
`
`12
`
`14
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`Caching Of Data Storage Devices,” is also assigned on its face to Sun
`
`Microsystems, Inc. Chong JP claims priority to Chong US. Chong JP, however, is
`
`important to the Petitioners’ challenge because it is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b), and it is unclear at this stage whether Patent Owner will attempt to swear
`
`behind Chong US. For purposes of efficiency, Chong US is discussed together
`
`with Chong JP.
`
`The Chong Reference is directed to efficient caching operations and fail-
`
`over support in data storage controllers and/or data storage devices. (Ex. 1005,
`
`1:7-10; Ex. 1007, ¶ 1; Ex. 1006; Ex. 1001, ¶ 36). The Chong Reference discloses
`
`two data storage devices, where identical data is written to each. (Ex. 1005, 3:30-
`
`49, 4:15-19, 4:26-28, 4:50-51; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 9, 12-13). The disclosed system
`
`includes redundant storage and network interface controllers to provide fault
`
`tolerant functions. Non-faulty controllers will take over operation of the faulty
`
`device. (Ex. 1005, 4:52-5:3; Ex. 1007, ¶ 14). The configuration disclosed by the
`
`Chong Reference is a RAID configuration because the two data storage devices
`
`appear to the hosts as a single, reliable drive. (Ex. 1001, ¶ 36).
`
`In Fig. 3 (below), the Chong Reference shows two data storage device
`
`controllers 116 and 122, each with a primary port and a secondary port. Each port
`
`comprises a Gigabit Interface Converter (GBIC) and a Serial Optical Converter for
`
`
`
`13
`
`15
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`PCI Bus (PSOC). (Ex. 1005 at Figure 3, 2:63-3:3, 4:15-19, 4:26-28, 4:50-51; Ex.
`
`1007, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 8, 12-13).
`
`
`PSOCs both allow communication between the data storage controllers and
`
`facilitate communication between hosts and the data storage devices. (Ex. 1005,
`
`3:34-38, 4:15-28, 4:50-51; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 9, 12-13; Ex. 1001, ¶ 37).
`
`The Chong Reference also discloses switches that connect the RAID units
`
`with numerous hosts. For example, in Fig. 3, the Chong Reference shows two
`
`switching circuits that couple Host1 and Host2 to the RAID controlling units 116
`
`and 122. (Ex. 1005 Fig. 3, 4:15-42, 4:50-51; Ex. 1007, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 12-13). Further,
`
`Fig. 3 of the Chong Reference shows the same topology as Fig. 4 in the ’346
`
`Patent. Specifically, in both controllers 116 and 122, one port is connected to the
`
`left switching circuit 111, and the other port is connected to the switching circuit
`
`on the right 112. The topology of Fig. 3 provides for the same “communication
`
`passages” described in the ’346 Patent’s specification (Ex. 1004, 3:62-4:12, Ex.
`
`
`
`14
`
`16
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`1005, 3:15-42, 4:15-28, 4:50-51; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 8-9, 12-13). The Chong Reference
`
`also discloses that a port in one RAID controlling unit exchanges information with
`
`a port in a second RAID controlling unit to facilitate data synchronization. (Ex.
`
`1005, Figs. 3 and 4, 3:31-67, 4:15-28, 4:50-5:30; Ex. 1007, Figs. 3 and 4, ¶¶ 9-10,
`
`12-14). This exchange of information allows one port to perform fault tolerant
`
`functions for another port when a RAID controller is faulty. (Ex. 1005, Fig. 4,
`
`4:52-5:3; Ex. 1007, Fig. 4, ¶ 14).
`
`Claim 1, Preamble (“an apparatus for a redundant interconnection
`
`between multiple hosts and a RAID”): The Chong Reference discloses the
`
`preamble by describing a system having multiple hosts connected redundantly to a
`
`set of data storage devices, where identical data is written to each storage device
`
`for data mirroring. (Ex. 1005, 3:30-49, 4:15-28, 4:50-51; Ex. 1007, ¶ 9, 12-13; Ex.
`
`1001, ¶36). The multiple hosts have multiple connections to the data storage
`
`devices through the switching circuits so that the system remains operational so
`
`long as one storage device is functioning. (Ex. 1005, Figs. 3 and 4, 4:15-5:3; Ex.
`
`1007, Figs. 3 and 4, ¶¶ 12-14; Ex. 1001, 40). The configuration disclosed by the
`
`Chong Reference is a RAID configuration. (Ex. 1001 ¶ 36). Thus, the Chong
`
`Reference discloses this limitation. (Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 36, 40).
`
`Claim 1, element [a] (“a first RAID controlling units [sic] and a second
`
`RAID controlling unit for processing a requirement of numerous host computers”):
`
`
`
`15
`
`17
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`The Chong Reference discloses this limitation because it teaches a first controller
`
`116 and a second controller 122. (Ex. 1005, Fig. 3, 4:15-22; Ex. 1007, ¶ 12). Each
`
`controller is coupled to, and controls, a data storage device in a RAID
`
`configuration. (Ex. 1005, Fig. 3, 4:15-22, 4:50-51; Ex. 1007, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 12-13; Ex.
`
`1001, ¶¶ 33, 38). Further, the Chong Reference discloses that controllers 116 and
`
`122 allow numerous hosts to communicate with data storage devices 124 and 125,
`
`thereby processing their data storage and access requirements. (Ex. 1005, Fig. 3,
`
`4:15-22, 4:50-51; Ex. 1007, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 12-13; Ex. 1001, ¶ 42).
`
`Claim 1, element [b] (“the first RAID controlling unit including a first
`
`network controlling unit and a second network controlling unit”): The Chong
`
`Reference discloses this limitation because it teaches that controller 116 includes
`
`two ports, a primary port and a secondary port. Each port includes “a GBIC 56, a
`
`PSOC . . .62 and a cache 66.” (Ex. 1005, Figs. 1 and 3, 2:67-3:3, 4:15-28; Ex.
`
`1007, Figs. 1 and 3, ¶¶ 8, 12; Ex. 1001, ¶ 44). A GBIC is a Gigabit Interface
`
`Converter, and a PSOC is a Serial Optical Converter for PCI Bus. (Ex. 1005, 2:63-
`
`3:1; Ex. 1007, ¶ 8). The GBIC and PSOC are used to process commands from the
`
`hosts and communicate over the network via the connection units. (Ex. 1005,
`
`3:16-22, 3:31-38, 4:15-28; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 8-9, 12; Ex. 1001, ¶ 44).
`
`Claim 1, element [c] (“the second RAID controlling unit including a third
`
`network controlling unit and a fourth network controlling unit”): The Chong
`
`
`
`16
`
`18
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`Reference discloses this limitation because it teaches that controller 122 also
`
`includes two ports, a primary port and a secondary port. Each port includes “a
`
`GBIC 56, a PSOC . . . 62 and a cache 66.” (Ex. 1005, Figs. 1 and 3, 2:67-3:3,
`
`4:26-28; Ex. 1007, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 8, 12). The GBIC and PSOC are used to process
`
`commands from the hosts and communicate over the network via the connection
`
`units. (Ex. 1005, 3:16-22, 3:31-38, 4:15-28; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 8-9, 12; Ex. 1001, ¶ 46).
`
`Claim 1, element [d] (“a plurality of connection units for connecting the
`
`first RAID controlling units [sic] and the second RAID controlling unit to the
`
`numerous host computers”): The Chong Reference discloses this limitation
`
`because it teaches that switching circuits 111 and 112 connect controllers 116 and
`
`122 to multiple hosts. Fig. 3 shows a configuration in which “two hosts, host 1 and
`
`host 2, are communicating with data storage devices 124 and 125 via switching
`
`circuit set 110 and controllers 116 and 122 on two fiber channel loops.” (Ex. 1005,
`
`fig. 3, 4:15-21; Ex. 1007, ¶ 12; Ex. 1001, ¶ 48). Switching circuit set 110 includes
`
`“two switching circuits 111 and 112.” (Ex. 1005, 4:23-24; Ex. 1007, ¶ 12).
`
`Claim 1, element [e] (“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”): The Chong Reference
`
`discloses that controllers 116 and 122 directly exchange information with the hosts
`
`through switching circuits 111 and 112. (Ex. 1001, ¶ 50). The Chong Reference
`
`
`
`17
`
`19
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`Fig. 3 shows direct connections between controllers 116 and 122 and switching
`
`circuits 111 and 112. (Ex. 1005, Fig. 3, 4:15-28, 4:50-51; Ex. 1007, Fig. 3, ¶ 12-
`
`13). The Chong Reference also discloses that hosts 1 and 2 communicate with data
`
`storage devices 124 and 125 through switching circuits 111 and 112 and
`
`controllers 116 and 122. (Ex. 1005, 4:15-21, Ex. 1007, ¶ 12).
`
`Claim 1, element [f] (“and the first network controlling unit exchanges
`
`information with the fourth network controlling unit”): The Chong Reference
`
`discloses that a first port in controller 116 (first network controlling unit)
`
`exchanges information with a first port in controller 122 (fourth network
`
`controlling unit) for synchronization purposes. (Ex. 1001, ¶ 52). Fig. 3 shows a
`
`direct connection between a PSOC in primary port 1 of controller 116 and a PSOC
`
`in secondary port 1 of controller 122. This direct connection is used for data
`
`synchronization between the PSOCs. (Ex. 1005, 3:50-67, 4:15-28, 4:50-51; Ex.
`
`1007, ¶¶ 10, 12-13). Synchronization is reciprocal, as the PSOCs send data and
`
`commands back and forth. (Ex. 1005, 3:50-67, 4:15-28, 4:50-51; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 10,
`
`12-13).
`
`Claim 1, element [g] (“and the second network controlling unit exchanges
`
`information with the third network controlling unit”): The Chong Reference
`
`discloses that a second port in controller 116 (second network controlling unit)
`
`exchanges information with a second port in controller 122 (third network
`
`
`
`18
`
`20
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`controlling unit) for synchronization purposes. (Ex. 1001, ¶ 54) Fig. 3 shows a
`
`direct connection between a PSOC in primary port 2 in controller 122 and a PSOC
`
`in secondary port 2 in controller 116. This direct connection is used for data
`
`synchronization between the PSOCs. (Ex. 1005, 3:50-67, 4:15-28, 4:50-51; Ex.
`
`1007, ¶¶ 10, 12-13). Synchrnonization is reciprocal, as the PSOCs send data and
`
`commands back and forth. (Ex. 1005, 3:50-67, 4:15-28, 4:50-51; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 10,
`
`12-13).
`
`Claim 2 (“said respective RAID controlling units are connected to the
`
`plurality of individual connecting units”): For the reasons discussed above, the
`
`Chong Reference discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Further, the Chong Reference
`
`discloses the additional limitation of claim 2 when it teaches that controllers 116
`
`and 122 (the first and second RAID controlling units) are each connected to
`
`switching circuits 111 and 112. (Ex. 1001, ¶ 57). Fig. 3 of the Chong Reference
`
`shows that controller 116 has direct connections to both switching circuits 111 and
`
`112. (Ex. 1005, Fig. 3, 4:15-28, 4:50-51; Ex. 1007, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 12-13). Likewise,
`
`controller 122 also has direct connections to switching circuits 111 and 112. (Ex.
`
`1005, Fig. 3, 4:15-28, 4:50-51; Ex. 1007, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 12-13).
`
`Claim 3 (“wherein the first network interface controlling unit is coupled to
`
`the connecting unit of one side and the second network interface controlling unit is
`
`coupled to the connecting unit of another side”): For the reasons discussed above,
`
`
`
`19
`
`21
`
`IPR2014-00949 Owner Ex. 2201
`ETRI, Patent Owner
`IBM & Oracle, Petitioners
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`the Chong Reference discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Further, the Chong
`
`Reference discloses the additional limitation of claim 3. (Ex. 1001, ¶ 60). The
`
`Chong Reference Fig. 3 shows that controller 116 is connected to both switching
`
`circuit 111 and 112. (Ex. 1005, Fig. 3, 4:15-28, 5:50-51; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 12-13).
`
`Primary port 1 of controller 116 is connected to switching circuit 111, and
`
`secondary port 2 of controller 116 is connected to switching circuit