`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION and
`ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00976
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(c) AND (d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 6
`
`III. THE BOARD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT
`CHONG DOES NOT DISCLOSE A “RAID” ................................................ 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Board Misapprehended And/Or Overlooked Chong’s
`Disclosure Of “Data Mirroring” ............................................................ 7
`
`The Board Misapprehended And/Or Overlooked Chong’s
`Disclosure Of Fail-Over Of Data Storage Devices ............................. 12
`
`The Board Abused Its Discretion In Not Giving Due Weight To
`Dr. Katz’s Opinions ............................................................................. 13
`
`The Board Abused Its Discretion In Finding That Chong Does
`Not Describe A RAID ......................................................................... 14
`
`IV. THE BOARD DID NOT FIND THAT ANY OTHER ELEMENT OF
`THE ’346 PATENT CLAIMS WAS ABSENT FROM CHONG ................ 15
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing: IPR2014-00976
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(c)–(d), Petitioners International Business
`
`Machines Corporation and Oracle America, Inc. (“Petitioners”) request rehearing
`
`of the Board’s December 11, 2014 Decision (Paper 14) denying institution of inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346 (“the ’346 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners respectfully submit that the Board abused its discretion in
`
`declining to institute inter partes review of the ’346 patent as anticipated by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,070,251 and its counterpart Japanese Patent No. JP-H11-120092A
`
`(collectively, “Chong”). In declining institution, the Board accepted Patent
`
`Owner’s assertion that Chong does not disclose a “RAID,” dismissing the opinions
`
`of Petitioners’ expert Dr. Katz as “not credible” and entitled to “little weight.”
`
`These conclusions in turn rested on two findings regarding Chong’s disclosures:
`
`(1) that Chong does not disclose “data mirroring,” i.e., identical data being written
`
`to the two data storage devices; and (2) that Chong does not disclose fail-over of
`
`data storage devices. But both of these findings were erroneous, misapprehending
`
`and/or overlooking pertinent disclosures―identified by Petitioners in the Petition
`
`and Dr. Katz in his Declaration―demonstrating Chong’s use of a “RAID.”
`
`First, in finding that “the Chong controllers do not write identical data to
`
`both data storage devices,” the Board accepted Patent Owner’s description of the
`
`data flow, and its identification of a purported “missing write” between the cache
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing: IPR2014-00976
`
`in one controller and the data storage device associated with the other controller
`
`that would allegedly be “necessary for Dr. Katz’s assertion that ‘[data] is written
`
`identically to both storage devices 124 and 125.’” (Prelim. Resp. at 34; Decision at
`
`8.) But Patent Owner’s “missing write” theory was misleading, misrepresenting
`
`Chong’s disclosures, and Petitioners’ reliance on them. As shown in the Petition
`
`and Dr. Katz’s declaration, Chong’s “data mirroring” does not rely on this
`
`“missing write” at all, but rather is achieved through an entirely different data flow.
`
`As shown in the Petition, and as Patent Owner conceded, Chong discloses
`
`identical data sent from each host to the caches on both controllers via primary and
`
`secondary network interface controllers (GBIC/PSOCs). (Petition at 10-11, 13-15,
`
`17-18, 28-30, 32-36, 41-44, 50-56; Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 36, 40, 50, 57, 60, 63, 93, 95; Ex.
`
`1005 at 3:45-48 (“Since both primary and secondary controllers 16 and 22 receive
`
`the same data, both caches 66 and 82 are filled at the same time in response to
`
`write commands from the host”); 4:26-28 (“[E]ach of controllers 116 and 122 is
`
`equivalent to the combination of primary and secondary controllers 16 and 22 in
`
`FIG. 1”), Fig. 3; Prelim. Resp. at 31 (Patent Owner’s annotated figure 3 showing
`
`data from both hosts sent to both caches).) And Chong further discloses that the
`
`cached data in each controller is transferred to the data storage device directly
`
`associated with that controller. (Petition at 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 28-30, 32-35, 41-
`
`42, 50-56; Ex. 1001, ¶ 36, 42, 48, 50, 93, 95; Ex. 1005 at 3:34-40 (“Fiber channel
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing: IPR2014-00976
`
`frames supplied from the host are sent to primary controller 16, which then
`
`responds on the loop by returning status information, etc. Frames addressed to data
`
`storage device 24 are passed through PSOC 62 via cache 66. In the normal
`
`operation, the data on the loop is also received by secondary controller 22 and data
`
`storage device 24.”), 4:26-28 (“[E]ach of controllers 116 and 122 is equivalent to
`
`the combination of primary and secondary controllers 16 and 22 in FIG. 1.”), Fig.
`
`3; see also Prelim. Resp. at 33 (Patent Owner’s annotated figure 3 excerpt showing
`
`free transfer of data from caches to data storage devices).)
`
`Petitioners and Dr. Katz cited to these disclosures in pointing out that “[t]he
`
`Chong Reference discloses two data storage devices, where identical data is
`
`written to each.” (Petition at 13; id. at 15 (“The Chong Reference discloses the
`
`preamble by describing a system having multiple hosts connected redundantly to a
`
`set of data storage device, where identical data is written to each storage device for
`
`data mirroring”) (citations omitted); Ex. 1001, ¶ 36 (“The Chong Reference
`
`discloses a system with a RAID configuration. Data is written identically to both
`
`storage devices 124 and 125 in the system.”) (citations omitted).)
`
`As shown in Chong’s Figure 3, therefore, the identical data in each
`
`cache―received from each host―is transferred to both data storage devices, 124
`
`and 125, resulting in “data mirroring.” (See, e.g., Petition at 13, 15, 32-33; Ex.
`
`1001, ¶ 36; Ex. 1005 at 3:34-40, 4:26-28, Fig. 3.) Because the identical data is
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing: IPR2014-00976
`
`already in both storage devices through this data flow, no write between the cache
`
`in one controller and the data storage device associated with the other controller is
`
`necessary for “data mirroring,” unless and until a controller fails. (Id.; Ex. 1005 at
`
`4:52-62, Fig. 4; contra Prelim. Resp. at 34.)1 Thus, Petitioners submit that the
`
`Board misapprehended and/or overlooked pertinent evidence identified by
`
`Petitioners in finding that Chong does not disclose “data mirroring.”
`
`Second, as shown in the Petition, Chong explicitly discloses transparent data
`
`storage device fail-over. For example, Chong states that it relates “to a method and
`
`apparatus that performs efficient caching operations and allows failover (i.e.,
`
`switch-over) in controllers and/or data storage devices to be transparent to a
`
`server or a host computer.” (Ex. 1005 at 1:7-10; Petition at 13; Ex. 1001, ¶ 36.)
`
`Chong thus teaches that each controller’s fail-over software detects failure “in
`
`itself, the other controller, or data storage devices 124, 125.” (Ex. 1005 at 3:3-6,
`
`4:28-32; Petition at 13, 21-22, 33, 43-44, 51, 56-57; Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 66, 97, 99.)
`
`Chong further teaches that the fail-over operation described in columns 4 and 5
`
`“also applies if one of data storage devices 124 and 125 fails.” (Ex. 1005 at 5:2-3;
`
`
`1 Because the transfer of identical data from the hosts to both storage devices is
`clearly shown in Chong’s Fig. 3 and described in the portions of the
`specification cited in the Petition and Dr. Katz’s Declaration (see, e.g., Petition
`at 13, 15, 32-33; Ex. 1001, ¶ 36), Petitioners could not have anticipated and
`addressed Patent Owner’s flawed interpretation of Chong in the Petition before
`it was raised for the first time in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing: IPR2014-00976
`
`Petition at 11, 13, 21-22, 30-31; Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 66, 97, 99.) Again, Petitioners and
`
`Dr. Katz cited these disclosures in noting that “[t]he Chong Reference is directed
`
`to efficient caching operations and fail-over support in data storage controllers
`
`and/or data storage devices” and that Chong’s “fail-over software detects faults in
`
`either of the storage controllers or the storage devices.” (Petition at 11, 13
`
`(citations omitted); see also Ex. 1001, ¶ 36 (“The Chong Reference is directed to
`
`efficient caching operations and fail-over support in data storage controllers and/or
`
`data storage devices.”), 40 (“These multiple connections provide redundancy in
`
`the event of a controller or data storage device failure”) (citations omitted).)
`
`Although the Board acknowledged these disclosures (Decision at 6, 9), it
`
`dismissed them on the basis that the combination of “data mirroring” and “fault
`
`tolerance” had not been “shown sufficiently.” (id. at 9.) But as discussed above,
`
`the Board’s finding that Chong does not disclose “data mirroring” was erroneous.
`
`With respect, therefore, the Board’s reasoning for not crediting Chong’s disclosure
`
`of data storage device fail-over was also erroneous.
`
`Because the Board’s underlying factual findings were erroneous, Petitioners
`
`respectfully submit that its ultimate conclusion with respect to Chong’s disclosure
`
`of a “RAID” and Dr. Katz’s opinions, was an abuse of discretion. Notably, as he
`
`declared, Dr. Katz was one of the researchers who developed the framework
`
`underlying the initial development of RAID systems in the late 1980s, and who
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing: IPR2014-00976
`
`coined the term “RAID.” (Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 11, 15.) Patent Owner itself has relied
`
`upon Dr. Katz regarding the meaning of “RAID” in these and related proceedings.
`
`(See Prelim. Resp. at 17-18; IPR2014-00949 Paper 16 at 16.) Thus, Dr. Katz is
`
`preeminently qualified to opine as to whether Chong discloses a RAID, and his
`
`opinions should not have been so lightly dismissed.
`
`In sum, because the Board misapprehended and/or overlooked pertinent
`
`disclosures in Chong identified by Petitioners and Dr. Katz in concluding that
`
`Chong does not disclose a “RAID,” and because the Board did not find any other
`
`claim element to be absent from Chong’s disclosures, rehearing should be granted,
`
`and inter partes review of all claims of the ’346 patent based on Chong instituted.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`A rehearing request “must specifically identify all matters the party believes
`
`the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was
`
`previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`Decisions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), which
`
`occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly
`
`erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v.
`
`Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`III. THE BOARD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT
`CHONG DOES NOT DISCLOSE A “RAID”
`
`The Board’s decision to decline institution rested on two primary factual
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing: IPR2014-00976
`
`findings: (1) that Chong does not disclose identical data written to the two data
`
`storage devices; and (2) that Chong does not disclose fail-over of data storage
`
`devices. (Decision at 8-9.) Based solely on those findings, the Board concluded
`
`that Dr. Katz’s opinions were “not credible” and should be given “little weight,”
`
`and that Petitioners had failed to show an express disclosure of a “RAID” in
`
`Chong. (Id.) With respect, however, both of the Board’s underlying factual
`
`findings were erroneous, misapprehending and/or overlooking pertinent
`
`disclosures in Chong identified by Petitioners and Dr. Katz.
`
`1.
`
`The Board Misapprehended And/Or Overlooked Chong’s
`Disclosure Of “Data Mirroring”
`
`The Board first found that “there is insufficient support for Petitioner’s
`
`contention that Chong discloses two data storage devices that appear as a single,
`
`reliable drive” because it was “not persuaded that Chong discloses writing identical
`
`data to both data storage devices, as Dr. Katz states.” (Decision at 8.) Rather, the
`
`Board accepted the Patent Owner’s description of Chong’s data flow. (Id.) In so
`
`doing, however, the Board misapprehended and/or overlooked Chong’s disclosures
`
`identified in the Petition and Dr. Katz’s supporting Declaration.
`
`As shown in the Petition and Dr. Katz’s supporting declaration, Chong
`
`discloses identical data being written from each host to the caches in both
`
`controllers 116 and 122. (Petition at 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 28-30, 32-36, 41-44, 50-
`
`56; Ex. 1001, ¶ 36, 40, 50, 57, 60, 63, 93, 95; Ex. 1005 at 3:45-48, 4:26-28.) This
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing: IPR2014-00976
`
`was conceded by the Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response, as demonstrated
`
`by its annotations of Chong Figure 3:
`
`
`
`(Prelim. Resp. at 31.) More particularly, as shown in Patent Owner’s own
`
`annotated Figure 3, Chong discloses that the data from Host 1 is transferred by
`
`switching device 111
`
`through a primary network
`
`interface controller
`
`(GBIC/PSOC) to the cache in controller 116, and also through a secondary
`
`network interface controller (GBIC/PSOC) to the cache in controller 122. (Petition
`
`at 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 28-30, 32-36, 41-44, 50-56; Ex. 1001, ¶ 36, 40, 50, 57, 60,
`
`63, 93, 95; Ex. 1005 at 3:45-48, 4:26-28.) This is shown by the green arrows in
`
`Patent Owner’s annotated Figure 3. (Prelim. Resp. at 31.) Similarly, the data from
`
`Host 2 is transferred by switching device 112 through the primary network
`
`interface controller (GBIC/PSOC) to the cache in controller 122, and also through
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing: IPR2014-00976
`
`the secondary network interface controller (GBIC/PSOC) to the cache in controller
`
`116. (Petition at 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 28-30, 32-36, 41-44, 50-56; Ex. 1001, ¶ 36,
`
`40, 50, 57, 60, 63, 93, 95; Ex. 1005 at 3:45-48, 4:26-28.) This is shown by the
`
`hashed blue arrows in Patent Owner’s annotated figure 3. (Prelim. Resp. at 31.)2
`
`Further, as explained in the Petition and by Dr. Katz, Chong also discloses
`
`that data from the cache in each controller is transferred to the data storage device
`
`directly associated with that controller. (Petition at 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 28-30, 32-
`
`35, 41-42, 50-56; Ex. 1001, ¶ 36, 42, 48, 50, 93, 95; Ex. 1005 at 3:16-22, 25-30,
`
`34-40, 4:26-28, Fig. 3.) This too was acknowledged by the Patent Owner in its
`
`Preliminary Response, as again demonstrated by its annotations of Chong Figure 3:
`
`
`
`(Prelim. Resp. at 33.) Specifically, Chong discloses that data in the cache of
`
`
`2 As the Board noted, in describing Figure 1’s configuration, Chong discloses
`that “[s]ince both primary and secondary controllers 16 and 22 receive the same
`data, both caches 66 and 82 are filled at the same time in response to write
`commands from the host.” (Petition at 33, 38, 50; Ex. 1005 at 3:45-48; Prelim.
`Resp. at 27-29; Decision at 8.) Chong also discloses that, in the dual storage
`device configuration shown in Figure 3, “each of controllers 116 and 122 is
`equivalent to the combination of primary and secondary controllers 16 and 22
`in Fig. 1.” (Petition at 33, 35-36, 39, 42-43, 51, 53-59; Ex. 1005 at 4:26-28.)
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing: IPR2014-00976
`
`controller 116 is transferred to data storage device 124, while the identical data in
`
`the cache of controller 122 is transferred to data storage device 125. (Petition at 10-
`
`11, 13-15, 17-18, 28-30, 32-35, 41-42, 50-56; Ex. 1001, ¶ 36, 42, 48, 50, 93, 95;
`
`Ex. 1005 at 3:16-22, 25-30, 34-40, 4:26-28, Fig. 3.) This is shown by the arrows
`
`circled in red in Patent Owner’s annotated figure. (Prelim. Resp. at 33.)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner did not identify any teaching in Chong suggesting that only a
`
`portion of the cached data is transferred to its associated data storage device, as
`
`would be required for identical data not to be written to both data storage devices.
`
`Rather, as Patent Owner acknowledged, Chong’s Figure 3 shows data is freely
`
`transferred between each cache and its associated data storage device. (Ex. 1005 at
`
`Fig. 3, 3:16-22, 25-30, 34-40, 4:26-28; Petition at 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 28-30, 32-
`
`35, 41-42, 50-56; Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 36, 42, 48, 50, 93, 95.) In this way, identical data
`
`from both hosts is written to both storage devices, resulting in “data mirroring.”3
`
`Nevertheless, Patent Owner argued that “data mirroring” was not shown
`
`because Chong teaches that data sent through each secondary network interface
`
`controller to its associated cache is not written to the data storage device associated
`
`
`3 Patent Owner’s annotated Figure 3 excerpted above shows the arrows depicting
`the data flow through the secondary network interface controllers terminating at
`the respective caches. (Prelim Resp. at 31.) But Patent Owner identified no
`support for its assertion that the data transferred through the secondary network
`interface controllers is somehow stopped at the caches and not transferred with
`the other cached data to the associated data storage device.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing: IPR2014-00976
`
`with the other controller. (Prelim. Resp. at 27-35.) Specifically, in the context of
`
`Chong’s Figure 3, Patent Owner asserted that, in normal mode before fail-over, the
`
`data written to the cache in controller 116 is not transferred to data storage device
`
`125, while the data written to the cache in controller 122 is not transferred to data
`
`storage device 124. (Prelim. Resp. at 31.)
`
`But that “missing write” theory is incorrect, and does not demonstrate lack
`
`of “data mirroring.” As explained in the Petition and as Patent Owner
`
`acknowledged, each cache already has identical data before fail-over from the
`
`transfers through primary and secondary network interface controllers. (Petition at
`
`10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 28-30, 34-40, 41-44, 50-56; Ex. 1001, ¶ 36, 40, 50, 57, 60, 63,
`
`93, 95; Ex. 1005 at 3:45-48, 4:26-28; see also Prelim. Resp. at 33.) And that
`
`identical data is transferred directly between each cache and its associated data
`
`storage device, resulting in identical data in each data storage device. (Petition at
`
`10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 28-30, 32-35, 41-42, 50-56; Ex. 1001, ¶ 36, 42, 48, 50, 93,
`
`95; Ex. 1005 at 3:16-22, 25-30, 36-38, 4:26-28, Fig. 3; see also Prelim. Resp. at
`
`33.) 4 There is thus no need for a write between the cache in one controller and the
`
`
`4 Similarly, in the context of Chong’s single data storage device embodiment
`shown in Figure 1, Patent Owner pointed out that the data written to cache 82 is
`not transferred to data storage device 24 when in normal mode before fail-over.
`(Prelim. Resp. at 28.) Instead, the secondary controller only “listens” to
`messages going to the primary controller in “wire tap” mode. (Id.) That makes
`sense, since data storage device 24 already has identical data transferred
`through cache 66, and there is no need for it to receive a second copy.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing: IPR2014-00976
`
`storage device associated with the other controller to enable “data mirroring”
`
`unless and until a controller fails. (Contra Prelim. Resp. at 34; Decision at 9.)
`
`In sum, therefore, by accepting Patent Owner’s “missing write” theory and
`
`reaching the erroneous finding that Chong does not disclose “data mirroring”, the
`
`Board misapprehended and/or overlooked Chong’s pertinent disclosures identified
`
`by Petitioners and Dr. Katz, and therefore abused its discretion.
`
`2.
`
`The Board Misapprehended And/Or Overlooked Chong’s
`Disclosure Of Fail-Over Of Data Storage Devices
`
`The Board’s second underlying factual finding supporting its conclusion that
`
`Chong does not describe a RAID was that “Chong’s disclosure of the fail-over
`
`operation of controller failure does not support the contention that Chong also
`
`discloses a fail-over operation for the data storage devices.” (Decision at 8-9.)
`
`With respect, that factual finding also was erroneous.
`
`Indeed, Chong explicitly states that it relates to “to a method and apparatus
`
`that performs efficient caching operations and allows failover (i.e., switch-over) in
`
`controllers and/or data storage devices to be transparent to a server or a host
`
`computer.” (Ex. 1005 at 1:7-10.) Chong thus teaches that the fail-over software in
`
`each controller in the Chong system detects failure “in itself, the other controller,
`
`or data storage devices 124, 125.” (Id. at 3:3-6, 4:28-32.) To that end, Chong
`
`teaches that “[t]he fail-over operation [described in column 4 and depicted in
`
`Figures 3 and 4] also applies if one of data storage devices 124 and 125 fails.”
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing: IPR2014-00976
`
`(Id. at 5:2-3.) Petitioners addressed these disclosures in detail in the Petition and in
`
`Dr. Katz’s declaration. (Petition at 11-13, 21-22, 30-31, 32-34, 42-44, 56-58; Ex.
`
`1001 at ¶¶ 36, 40, 65-66, 97, 99-100.)
`
`Although these passages were cited by the Board in the Decision (at 6, 9), it
`
`appears that the Board misapprehended their significance and therefore failed to
`
`give them due weight. In that regard, the Board’s stated reason for summarily
`
`dismissing them from consideration was that it was not persuaded that Chong
`
`discloses “data mirroring” in combination with these “fault tolerance” disclosures.
`
`(Decision at 9.) As discussed above, however, the Board’s finding that Chong
`
`does not disclose “data mirroring” was itself erroneous. Indeed, as Patent Owner
`
`itself acknowledged, one skilled in the art would understand the need for “data
`
`mirroring” to enable fail-over of data storage devices as recited in Chong, to ensure
`
`that no data is lost. (Prelim. Resp. at 36.) That is precisely what Chong describes.
`
`For these reasons, Petitioners respectfully submit that the Board’s erroneous
`
`finding that Chong does not describe fail-over of data storage devices further
`
`misapprehended and/or overlooked Chong’s pertinent disclosures identified by
`
`Petitioners and Dr. Katz, and therefore further constituted an abuse of discretion.
`
`3.
`
`The Board Abused Its Discretion In Not Giving Due Weight To
`Dr. Katz’s Opinions
`
`Based solely on its findings regarding “data mirroring” and “fault tolerance,”
`
`the Board concluded that Dr. Katz’s opinions regarding “RAID” were “not
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing: IPR2014-00976
`
`credible” and should be given “little weight.” (Decision at 8-9.) However, because
`
`the Board’s underlying findings were erroneous for the reasons discussed above, so
`
`too was its summary dismissal of Dr. Katz’s opinions based on those findings.
`
`Indeed, in refusing to credit Dr. Katz’s opinions, the Board overlooked that
`
`Dr. Katz was one of the researchers who pioneered the development of RAID
`
`systems in the late 1980s, and coined the term “RAID.” (Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 11, 15.)
`
`Patent Owner relied on Dr. Katz’s definition of “RAID” in this and other
`
`proceedings regarding the ’346 patent. (Prelim. Resp. at 17-18; IPR2014-00949
`
`Paper 16 at 16.) Thus, Dr. Katz is preeminently qualified to opine as to whether
`
`Chong discloses a RAID. And his opinions were credible and consistent with
`
`Chong’s disclosures. The Board erred by failing to give them due weight.
`
`4.
`
`The Board Abused Its Discretion In Finding That Chong Does
`Not Describe A RAID
`
`At base, the Board’s decision not to institute review was founded entirely on
`
`its factual findings with respect to “data mirroring” and “fault tolerance” of data
`
`storage devices. (Decision at 7-9.) But as explained above, those findings were
`
`erroneous and misapprehended and/or overlooked the pertinent disclosures in
`
`Chong identified by Petitioners and Dr. Katz. (See Sections 1 and 2, supra.) It
`
`follows that the Board’s ultimate conclusion that Chong does not describe a
`
`“RAID” also was erroneous, and therefore constituted an abuse of discretion.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing: IPR2014-00976
`
`IV. THE BOARD DID NOT FIND THAT ANY OTHER ELEMENT OF
`THE ’346 PATENT CLAIMS WAS ABSENT FROM CHONG
`
`The Board based its rejection of the Petition solely on its acceptance of
`
`Patent Owner’s assertion that Chong does not disclose a “RAID” which, for the
`
`reasons discussed above, was erroneous. The Board did not find that any other
`
`element of the ’346 Patent claims is absent from Chong. Indeed, as demonstrated
`
`in the Petition and Dr. Katz’s declaration, Chong explicitly describes each and
`
`every element of the challenged claims. (See Petition and Ex. 1001, generally.)
`
`Thus, Petitioners submit that they have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that
`
`claims 1-9 of the ’346 patent are anticipated by Chong.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners request that the Board grant
`
`Petitioners’ rehearing request and initiate inter partes review of claims 1 through 9
`
`of the ’346 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Chong.
`
`Date: January 9, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Todd M. Friedman
`Todd M. Friedman (Reg. No. 42,559)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`todd.friedman@kirkland.com
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Fax: (212) 446-4900
`
`Attorneys For Petitioners
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Request for Rehearing: IPR2014-00976
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Petitioners’
`
`Request for Rehearing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(c) and (d) was served on
`
`January 9, 2015, via electronic mail, as consented to by counsel, to the Patent
`
`Owner by serving the counsel of record as follows:
`
`Matthew C. Phillips, Reg. No. 43,403
`matthew.phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com
`Derek Meeker, Reg. No. 53,313
`derek.meeker@renaissanceiplaw.com
`Renaissance IP Law Group LLP
`9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 560
`Portland, Oregon 97223
`
`Alexander C.D. Giza, Reg. No. 51,740
`agiza@raklaw.com
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Todd M. Friedman
`Todd M. Friedman (Reg. No. 42,559)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`todd.friedman@kirkland.com
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Fax: (212) 446-4900
`Attorneys For Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`