`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION and
`ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00976
`Patent No. 6,978,346
`
`__________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`A. Other Inter Partes Reviews ................................................................... 2
`B.
`The ’346 Patent. .................................................................................... 3
`C.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 9
`D.
`Claims of the ’346 Patent .................................................................... 10
`INTERPRETATION OF THE ’346 PATENT CLAIMS ............................. 12
`A.
`“RAID” ................................................................................................ 14
`B.
`“RAID Controller” .............................................................................. 18
`C.
`“Connection Unit” ............................................................................... 19
`D.
`“Network Interface Controller” ........................................................... 21
`E.
`“Exchanges Information” .................................................................... 21
`IV. TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED BASED ON EITHER
`CHONG-US OR CHONG-JP. ....................................................................... 24
`A.
`Chong Does Not Disclose a “RAID.” ................................................. 24
`1.
`Chong Does Not Explicitly or Inherently Teach a RAID......... 26
`a.
`Data is Not Written Identically to Both Storage
`Devices as Asserted by Dr. Katz. ................................... 27
`Chong Does Not Teach Fault Tolerance as
`Asserted by Dr. Katz. ..................................................... 35
`Dr. Katz’s Assertion That the Data Storage Devices
`Appear as a RAID Rests Upon Unfounded Assumptions. ....... 37
`
`b.
`
`2.
`
`IPR2013-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page ii
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Chong Does Not Disclose the “Exchanges Information”
`Limitations. .......................................................................................... 38
`1.
`Chong’s PSOC is Not Part of a Network Interface
`Controller. ................................................................................. 38
`Even if the PSOC Were Part of a Network Interface
`Controllers, Chong Fails to Satisfy This Limitation
`Because the Information Exchange Does Not Go
`Through the Connection Units. ................................................. 42
`Chong Fails to Satisfy the “Transmit and Receive . . .
`Reciprocally” Requirements of the Board’s Preliminary
`Interpretation of the “Exchanges Information”
`Limitations. ............................................................................... 43
`The Two Chong-Based Challenges are Redundant to Each
`Other. ................................................................................................... 46
`The Challenges is this Petition are Redundant to the Petitioners’
`Challenges Against the Same Claims in IPR2014-00949. .................. 47
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 50
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`V.
`
`
`IPR2013-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page iii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................ 25
`Carl Zeiss SMT GmbH v. Nikon Corp., IPR2013-00363, Paper 17 (Jan. 30,
`2014) .............................................................................................................. 47
`Dell, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecomm’ns Research Inst., IPR2013-00635,
`Paper 19 (Mar. 20, 2014) ........................................................................passim
`Dell, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecomm’ns Research Inst., IPR2013-00635,
`Paper 28 (June 20, 2014) ................................................................................. 2
`Dell, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecomm’n Research Inst., IPR2014-00152, Paper
`12 (May, 16 2014) ............................................................................... 3, 22, 43
`Gubelmann v. Gang, 408 F.2d 758 (CCPA 1969) ................................................... 25
`Larose Indus., LLC v. Capriola Corp., IPR2013-00120, Paper 20 (July 22, 2013) 47
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (Oct.
`25, 2012) .................................................................................................. 49, 50
`MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............. 25
`Mobotix Corp. v. E-Watch, Inc., IPR2013-00334, Paper 18 (Jan. 10, 2014) .......... 47
`In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................... 13
`Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int’l, 316 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................ 38
`In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578 (CCPA 1981) .............................................................. 25
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................ 13, 23
`Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .............. 26
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page iv
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119 .......................................................................................................... 9
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) ...................................................................................................49
`
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`Other Authorities
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002) .......................................................15
`MPEP § 2112(IV) ....................................................................................................26
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ..12
`Webster’s Computer Dictionary (9th ed. 2001) ......................................................15
`
`IPR2013-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page v
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, the Patent Owner hereby
`
`provides a Preliminary Response to the June 18, 2014 Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (herein “Petition” or “Pet.”). A Notice dated June 25, 2014 (Paper 4) set
`
`September 25, 2014 as the deadline for this Preliminary Response.1
`
`The Patent Owner is the Electronics and Telecommunications Research
`
`Institute (“ETRI”). Founded more than twenty-five years ago, ETRI employs
`
`approximately 1,700 researchers and technical staff, over 90 percent of which have
`
`advanced degrees.
`
` ETRI researchers are active
`
`in
`
`the electronics and
`
`telecommunications standard-setting processes and have authored on average over
`
`200 technical publications each year. ETRI has received over 4,319 U.S. Patents
`
`and $180 million in royalties since 2007 on the technologies that it has developed.
`
`The Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board deny the Petition and
`
`not institute trial. The Petition proposes two challenges, each of which fails to have
`
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, as explained herein.
`
`
`
`1 No fee is due with this Preliminary Response. If, however, the Office believes that
`
`any fee is due, it is authorized to charge deposit account No. 50-5836.
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 1 of 51
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Other Inter Partes Reviews
`
`The current Petition is one of five petitions for inter partes review of the ʼ346
`
`Patent. The first two petitions were filed jointly by Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`
`and NetApp, Inc. The Board instituted trial in the first of those, IPR2013-00635, to
`
`determine whether claims 1-3 and 5-8 are anticipated by a reference called Hathorn.
`
`Dell, Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecomm’ns Research Inst., IPR2013-00635, Paper 19 (Mar.
`
`20, 2014) (herein “’635 Inst. Dec’n”). Other challenges proposed in the IPR2013-
`
`00635 petition were denied, and claims 4 and 9 are not at issue in that case. Id. The
`
`Patent Owner filed a Response with a supporting declaration by Dr. Thomas M.
`
`Conte (Ex. 2003,2 herein “Conte ’635 Decl.”) in June 2014. Id., Paper 28 (June 20,
`
`2014). An oral hearing is scheduled for December 18, 2014.
`
`The Board did not institute trial on any of the challenges proposed in the
`
`second petition filed by Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., and NetApp, Inc. Dell, Inc.
`
`
`
`2 All Patent Owner exhibits also of record in IPR2013-00635 have the same exhibit
`
`numbers here as in that case, in the range 2001-2099. New Patent Owner exhibits
`
`in this case begin with the number 2301.
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 2 of 51
`
`
`
`v. Elecs. & Telecomm’ns Research Inst., IPR2014-00152, Paper 12 (May, 16 2014)
`
`(herein “’152 Non-Inst. Dec’n”).
`
`The third and fourth petitions are two substantially identical petitions filed by
`
`VMware, Inc., and jointly by International Business Machines Corp. (“IBM”) and
`
`Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”), respectively, in IPR2014-00901 and IPR2014-
`
`00949. Those petitions challenge all claims of the ’346 Patent under a variety of
`
`grounds.
`
`The present Petition was also filed by IBM and Oracle and therefore
`
`represents their second attempt to challenge all claims of the ’346 Patent under
`
`additional grounds based on the Chong references, which are not at issue in any of
`
`the other inter partes reviews .
`
`B.
`
`The ’346 Patent.
`
`The ʼ346 Patent is directed at useful and advantageous ways to interconnect a
`
`RAID, an acronym for “redundant array of inexpensive disks,” to its host computers.
`
`Although a RAID is formed of many disk drives, it appears via a controller – a RAID
`
`controller – to its host(s) as a single disk storage peripheral. (Conte ’635 Decl. ¶¶
`
`18-21.) A RAID provides redundancy at the disk-drive level and thus protection
`
`against failure of one or more disk drives within the RAID. (Id. ¶ 18.) The inventors
`
`of the ’346 Patent did not invent the concept of RAID. Instead of providing
`
`redundancy at the level of the disk drives, as a RAID already provides, the invention
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 3 of 51
`
`
`
`described and claimed in the ’346 Patent provides novel and advantageous redundant
`
`interconnections between a RAID and its host computers. That interconnection
`
`provides both fault tolerance and enhanced performance, measured in terms of
`
`bandwidth, if a controller or connection fails. (Id. ¶ 31; ’346 Patent 2:11-15, 3:1-9.)
`
`Whereas a RAID per se provides fault tolerance if a disk drive fails, the claimed
`
`invention in the ’346 Patent provides fault tolerance if a RAID controller or
`
`connection fails. (Conte Decl. ¶ 31.) Thus, the ’346 Patent is aptly entitled
`
`“Apparatus for Redundant Interconnection Between Multiple Hosts and RAID”
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`The inventors of the ’346 Patent were not the first to connect multiple host
`
`computers to a RAID or to provide redundant interconnections to a RAID. Indeed,
`
`the ’346 Patent describes several prior art systems that attempt, like the invention,
`
`to provide interconnection redundancy between multiple hosts and a RAID, but none
`
`of them do so while preserving the same performance as before a controller or
`
`connection fault. Most notably for purposes of understanding the prior art cited in
`
`the Petition, Figure 2 (reproduced below right) illustrates a prior art system having
`
`a single hub or switch 210 connecting host computers 200 and 201 with RAID
`
`controllers 230 and 231 of a RAID 240. The RAID controllers 230 and 231 include
`
`communication controllers 221 and 222, which are directly connected to each other,
`
`as in the new references cited in the Petition. One RAID controller is the backup for
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 4 of 51
`
`
`
`the other, should the other RAID
`
`controller or its connection to the hub
`
`or switch 210 fail. While that
`
`interconnection
`
`provides
`
`fault
`
`tolerance, a fault in one of the RAID
`
`controllers or its connection to the
`
`hub or switch causes the system to
`
`have only half
`
`the bandwidth
`
`between each of the host computers
`
`200-201 and the RAID 240 as
`
`compared to its state before the fault. (’346 Patent 1:49-59; Conte ’635 Decl. ¶¶ 25-
`
`26.)
`
`The inventions of the ’346 Patent, as illustrated by way of example in Figures
`
`4 and 5, provide enhanced redundancy to interconnect the host computers with a
`
`RAID. Referring to Figure 4 (reproduced below) as an example, a RAID 490 has
`
`two RAID controllers 460 and 461, each of which has two network interface
`
`controllers – 470 and 471 in the RAID controller 460, and 480 and 481 in the RAID
`
`controller 461. Two hubs or switches 440 and 441 connect each RAID controller to
`
`a plurality of host computers 400-405. This redundant interconnection scheme
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 5 of 51
`
`
`
`provides fault tolerance with the same bandwidth before and after a fault. (’346
`
`Patent 3:1-9; Conte ’635 Decl. ¶ 31.)
`
`
`
`For example, before a RAID controller or connection fault, the host computer
`
`404 would communicate with the RAID 490 via the hub or switch 441 to the network
`
`interface controller 481 of the RAID controller 461. (’346 Patent 3:6 – 4:12.) If
`
`there is a failure of the RAID controller 461 or its connection to the hub or switch
`
`441, then the host computer 404 could communicate with the RAID 490 via the other
`
`RAID controller 460, specifically its network interface controller 471. (Id. 4:19-25;
`
`Conte ’635 Decl. ¶ 30.) The following annotated versions of Figure 4 of the ’346
`
`Patent illustrate these two data transfer paths. The drawing on the left illustrates the
`
`primary data transfer path through the network interface controller 481 before
`
`failover, and the drawing on the right illustrates the data transfer path through the
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 6 of 51
`
`
`
`network interface controller 471 after failure of the RAID controller 461 (Conte ’635
`
`Decl. ¶ 30):
`
`
`
`
`
`Similarly, the network interface controller 480 can be used if the network
`
`interface controller 470 in the other RAID controller fails. (’346 Patent 4:19-25)
`
`Thus, if either the network interface controller 470 or 481 or its connection to the
`
`hub or switch fails, then the network interface controller 480 or 471, respectively, in
`
`the other RAID controller can serve the same function, and the overall bandwidth
`
`between each of the host computers 400-405 and the RAID 490 remains the same.
`
`(Conte ’635 Decl. ¶ 31.) Accordingly, the present invention “provides an apparatus
`
`for a redundant interconnection between multiple host computers and a RAID, which
`
`is capable of supporting a fault tolerance of a RAID controller and simultaneously
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 7 of 51
`
`
`
`heightening a performance” relative to the prior art systems, i.e., maintaining
`
`bandwidth despite a fault. (See, e.g., ’346 Patent 2:11-15.)
`
`To facilitate failover from one network interface controller to another,
`
`network interface controllers 470 and 480 exchange information, as do network
`
`interface controllers 481 and 471 (see, e.g., ’346 Patent 3:1-3, 3:62-66), as illustrated
`
`by way of example in the following annotated version of Figure 4 of the ’346 Patent:
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 8 of 51
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The application that led to the ʼ346 Patent was filed on December 29, 2000
`
`(Ex. 20013 at 1) and claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 to a patent application
`
`filed September 19, 2000 in Korea (id. at 24). The prosecution of this application
`
`was straight-forward. A first Office action rejected all originally filed claims 1-8.
`
`(Id. at 91-95.) The Patent Owner responded by amending claims 1-8 (id. at 102-03),
`
`adding new claim 9 (id. at 104), and arguing against the rejections (id. at 105-08).
`
`In doing so, the Patent Owner explained that pairs of network interface controllers
`
`exchange information through the connecting units:
`
`
`
`3 The Patent Owner’s Exhibit 2001 is similar to the Petitioners’ Exhibit 1004, but
`
`the latter includes only portions of the ’346 Patent prosecution history.
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 9 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at 106 (emphases added).) After the Examiner maintained the same rejections,
`
`the Patent Owner responded by amending the claims further and repeating the same
`
`remarks quoted above explaining that pairs of network interface controllers
`
`exchange information through the connecting units. (Id. at 135-36.) The Examiner
`
`then allowed all claims without providing any reasons for allowance. (Id. at 146.)
`
`The ʼ346 Patent thus granted having claims 1-9.
`
`D. Claims of the ’346 Patent
`
`Independent claims 1 and 9 use slightly different terminology to refer to the
`
`components of the invention. The following color-annotated versions of Figure 4
`
`are helpful as aids in understanding those claims. The added color labels in these
`
`drawings correspond to the terminology used in the respective claims. The orange
`
`arrows in both drawings illustrate the exchange of information between particular
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 10 of 51
`
`
`
`network interface controllers, as recited in the claims. For clarity, this document
`
`uses the labels in Figure 4 (i.e., “RAID controller” and “network interface
`
`controller”) except when quoting the slightly different names used in claim 1.
`
`’346 PATENT FIG. 4 ANNOTATED WITH CLAIM 1 TERMINOLOGY
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 11 of 51
`
`
`
`’346 PATENT FIG. 4 ANNOTATED WITH CLAIM 9 TERMINOLOGY
`
`
`
`III.
`
`INTERPRETATION OF THE ’346 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`The Office’s policy is to give the claims of a duly granted patent in a review
`
`proceeding their “broadest reasonable interpretation.”4 Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012). It is important to note that such
`
`an interpretation must be reasonable; in fact, it must be reasonable in light of the
`
`relevant intrinsic evidence, including the specification. A body of case law has held
`
`
`
`4 The Patent Owner reserves all rights to argue, if necessary, that the broadest-
`
`reasonable-interpretation standard should not be employed during a review.
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 12 of 51
`
`
`
`that in the context of original patent examination, where the applicant has an almost
`
`unfettered ability to amend its claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation must be
`
`in light of the specification, which is the only intrinsic evidence fixed at the time of
`
`filing. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he PTO is
`
`required to consult the specification during examination in order to determine the
`
`permissible scope of the claim.”). In that context, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of claim language is the “meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
`
`as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
`
`whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
`
`the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” Id. at 1054.
`
`For a patent under review, the entire original prosecution history is fixed at
`
`the time of filing of the review petition. In fact, courts have long recognized that the
`
`public relies on the prosecution history and held that such reliance is proper. For at
`
`least these reasons, it would be unreasonable for the Office during a review of a
`
`granted patent to ignore “whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise
`
`that may be afforded by” the concluded original prosecution history. Id. Indeed, the
`
`Federal Circuit has recently instructed the Office to take into account the patentee’s
`
`statements in the original prosecution history to interpret claims of a patent under
`
`reexamination. Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (“[T]he prosecution history . . . serves as intrinsic evidence for purposes of
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 13 of 51
`
`
`
`claim construction. This remains true in construing patent claims before the PTO.”)
`
`The Board must do the same in this review.
`
`The Board has preliminarily interpreted some terms and phrases of the ’346
`
`Patent claims in its institution decision in IPR2013-00635 and its non-institution
`
`decision in IPR2014-00152, and, in those other proceedings, the Patent Owner has
`
`proposed interpretations of certain claim terms and phrases, the meaning of which
`
`do not matter to decide the challenges in this Petition. What follows are the Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed interpretations of claim terms and phrases that are relevant to an
`
`analysis of the challenges raised in this Petition.5
`
`A.
`
`“RAID”
`
`The Board’s preliminary interpretation of “RAID” simply spells out the
`
`acronym (i.e., redundant array of inexpensive disks), ’635 Inst. Dec’n at 8,
`
`apparently leaving each term therein to take its ordinary meaning in the art in that
`
`context. In that case, so long as a reasonable meaning is attributed to the terms
`
`“redundant” and “array” in the acronym, then Chong’s data storage devices do not
`
`form a “RAID.”
`
`
`
`5 The Patent Owner reserves all rights to offer additional or different claim
`
`interpretations in this proceeding if necessary.
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 14 of 51
`
`
`
`However, the better approach to deciding the challenges in this and the other
`
`reviews is to more explicitly define the terms that make up the acronym “RAID.”
`
`At least the terms “array” and “disks” deserve further elaboration.
`
`First, the term “disks” in the acronym means disk drives, rather than disk
`
`platters. The term “disks” can have multiple meanings. A single disk drive
`
`(sometimes imprecisely called a “disk”) may have multiple disk platters (sometimes
`
`imprecisely called “disks”), but a single disk drive is in no sense a RAID. (See Conte
`
`’635 Decl. ¶¶ 16, 18.) Instead, a RAID is an array of multiple disk drives configured
`
`for redundancy. (Id. ¶ 18.)
`
`Second, a RAID, as an “array,” is a single logical storage unit of disk drives.
`
`Multiple technical dictionaries support this view. For example, Webster’s Computer
`
`Dictionary defines “RAID x” (where x = 0, 1, and 2) as “[a] type of RAID storage
`
`device that combines two or more hard disks into a single logical drive. . . .”
`
`(Webster’s Computer Dictionary at 308 (9th ed. 2001) (Ex. 2004 at 11) (emphasis
`
`added); Conte ’635 Decl. ¶ 19.) Similarly, the Microsoft Computer Dictionary
`
`defines “RAID” saying, in part, “A data storage method in which data is distributed
`
`across a group of computer disk drives that function as a single storage unit. . . .”
`
`(Microsoft Computer Dictionary at 437 (5th ed. 2002) (Ex. 2005 at 3) (emphasis
`
`added); Conte ’635 Decl. ¶ 19.) In fact, a RAID is an alternative to a Single Large
`
`Expensive Disk (SLED), which, of course, presents itself as a single logical drive.
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 15 of 51
`
`
`
`(See Conte ’635 Decl. ¶ 16-18.) As Dr. Conte explains, “[W]hat sets a RAID apart
`
`is that it is a 'black box' that can be interchanged with a traditional disk drive without
`
`needing to change the hardware or software interfaces.” (Conte ’635 Decl. ¶ 19; see
`
`also generally id. ¶¶ 18-21, 38.)
`
`DeKoning,6 one of the references relied on by the same Petitioners in
`
`IPR2014-00494 (and by another petitioner in IPR2014-00901) further supports this
`
`understanding in the art, stating:
`
`RAID storage subsystems typically utilize a control
`module that shields the user or host system from the details
`of managing the redundant array. The controller makes
`the subsystem appear to the host computer as a single,
`highly reliable, high capacity disk drive. In fact, the
`RAID controller may distribute the host computer system
`supplied data across a plurality of the small independent
`drives with redundancy and error checking information so
`as to improve subsystem reliability. Frequently RAID
`subsystems provide large cache memory structures to
`further improve the performance of the RAID subsystem.
`
`
`
`6 DeKoning is new evidence not cited in the Patent Owner’s IPR2013-00635
`
`Response filed June 20, 2014, but further supporting the Patent Owner’s
`
`interpretation of “RAID.”
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 16 of 51
`
`
`
`The cache memory is associated with the control module
`such that the storage blocks on the disk array are mapped
`to blocks in the cache. This mapping is also transparent to
`the host system. The host system simply requests blocks
`of data to be read or written and the RAID controller
`manipulates the disk array and cache memory as required.
`
`DeKoning 1:65 – 2:14 (emphases added).
`
`Moreover, Hathorn, the reference at issue in the IPR2013-00635 trial (as well
`
`as the IPR2014-00901 and IPR2014-00949 petitions), also supports the view that a
`
`RAID “array” must be a single logical storage unit of disk drives. Hathorn makes a
`
`clear distinction between a “RAID” and a mirroring or dual-copy system employing
`
`two disk drives, which, although redundant, do not form an “array” in the sense of a
`
`RAID. Indeed, Hathorn describes these two scenarios as “alternative[s].” (Hathorn
`
`1:60 – 2:11.)
`
`Finally, the Petitioners recognize this fundamental aspect of a RAID. The
`
`Petition argues that Chong discloses a RAID “because the two data storage devices
`
`appear to the hosts as a single, reliable drive.” (Pet. at 13 (emphasis added).) In
`
`fact, not only does the Petition contend that “[t]he configuration disclosed by the
`
`Chong Reference is a RAID configuration” precisely for this reason, the Petitioner’s
`
`expert, Dr. Katz agrees. According to him, Chong’s alleged “combination of data
`
`mirroring and fault tolerance makes the two data storage devices appear as a single,
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 17 of 51
`
`
`
`reliable drive to the hosts, or in other words, a RAID.” (Ex. 1001 ¶ 36 (emphasis
`
`added).) Although the Petitioners and Dr. Katz7 are incorrect in their understanding
`
`of Chong’s disclosure, as explained in § IV-A infra at 26-36, their premise as to this
`
`defining characteristic of a RAID is correct.
`
`In summary, taking into account the underlying meaning of the terms in the
`
`acronym, “RAID” should be understood to mean “a single logical unit for mass
`
`storage that provides fault tolerance and recovery via employing multiple physical
`
`disk drives.” (Conte ’635 Decl. ¶ 38.)
`
`B.
`
`“RAID Controller”
`
`The Board’s preliminary interpretation of the synonymous phrases “RAID
`
`controller” and “RAID controlling unit” in IPR2013-00635 is “a component that
`
`controls operation of the RAID.” ’635 Inst. Dec’n at 8. While that preliminary
`
`interpretation is not incorrect, it would be useful in deciding the patentability issues
`
`in this case to elaborate slightly more upon what the terms in that interpretation
`
`mean. As noted above in the quoted passage from DeKoning, a RAID controller is
`
`
`
`7 Dr. Katz’s Declaration is also new evidence not cited in the Patent Owner’s
`
`IPR2013-00635 Response filed June 20, 2014, but further supporting the Patent
`
`Owner’s interpretation of “RAID.”
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 18 of 51
`
`
`
`what provides the redundancy in a RAID. Thus, part of the “operation” that a RAID
`
`controller “controls” is storing data in some redundant fashion among the disk drives
`
`in the array and also being able to read that data, no matter what disk drive the data
`
`or part of the data is on. “[T]he function of a RAID controller is to provide
`
`redundancy by writing redundant data to multiple disk drives. Thus, a single RAID
`
`controller must be able to write to all of the disk drives in the RAID unit in order to
`
`perform redundancy.” (Conte ’635 Decl. ¶ 39.) Even if there are multiple RAID
`
`controllers, “both RAID controllers must necessarily be able to write to all of the
`
`disk drives that constitute a RAID.” (Id. ¶ 41.)
`
`The Patent Owner therefore proposes that for deciding the patentability issues
`
`in this trial, the Board refine its interpretation of “RAID controller” and “RAID
`
`controlling unit” to be “a component that controls operation of the RAID so as to
`
`provide redundant storage of data among the array of disk drives.” A corollary of
`
`this interpretation is that the RAID controller must be able to write to and read from
`
`(except in the event of a disk failure) all disk drives of the RAID array. “Necessarily,
`
`[a RAID controller] must be able to read from all of the disk drives in order to
`
`provide operation after a failure.” (Ex. 2007 at 112.)
`
`C.
`
`“Connection Unit”
`
`The Patent Owner agrees with the Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of
`
`“connection unit” and the Board preliminary interpretation of that phrase in the
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 19 of 51
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00635 institution decision to mean “a hub or a switch.” That interpretation
`
`is consistent with the specification, which illustrates embodiments in Figures 4 and
`
`5 having two “connection units” 440 and 441, each one of which may be a hub or a
`
`switch. Figure 4 is reproduced below with annotations to point out these two
`
`connection units:
`
`
`
`
`
`The language of the independent claims introducing the “connection units”
`
`calls for a plurality of them, as follows: “a plurality of connection units for
`
`connecting the first RAID controlling units and the second RAID controlling unit to
`
`the numerous host computers” and “a plurality of connection units for connecting
`
`the host computers and the RAID” (quoting claims 1 and 9 with emphases added).
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 20 of 51
`
`
`
`D.
`
`“Network Interface Controller”
`
`The Board has not previously interpreted the synonymous phrases “network
`
`controlling unit” and “network interface controller,” which appear in independent
`
`claims 1 and 9, respectively. The Petition proposes “the part of a RAID controller
`
`that allows the RAID controller to communicate with the ‘connection units.’” (Pet.
`
`at 6-7.) While the Petitioner’s proposed interpretation is not incorrect, it fails to
`
`capture one aspect of the phrases’ meaning important to the patentability issues in
`
`this and the other reviews. In particular, a network controller may include one or
`
`multiple ports. (Conte ’635 Decl. ¶ 44 (providing examples of multi-port network
`
`controllers).) Taking that fact into account, the Patent Owner proposes that “network
`
`controlling unit” and “network interface controller” should be interpreted to mean
`
`“a controller that includes one or more ports as an interface to a computer network
`
`and that supplies communication functionality when attached to the computer
`
`network.”
`
`E.
`
`“Exchanges Information”
`
`Claim 1 states that “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.” Claim 9 similarly
`
`states “wherein the first network controlling unit in the first RAID controlling unit
`
`exchanges information with the second network controlling unit in the second RAID
`
`IPR2014-00976
`
`Preliminary Response
`
`Page 21 of 51
`
`
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
