UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`Oracle Corporation,
`NetApp Inc. and
`Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2014-01197
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035
`
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ iv
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 2
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest ................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Related Matters ............................................................................................ 2
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ......................................................................... 3
`D.
`Service Information ...................................................................................... 3
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 3
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW ...................................... 4
`A. Grounds for Standing ................................................................................... 4
`B.
`Identification of Challenge ........................................................................... 4
`1. The Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on Which the Challenge Is
`Based ............................................................................................................ 4
`2. How the Construed Claims Are Unpatentable Under the Statutory
`Grounds Identified in 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2) and Supporting Evidence
`Relied Upon to Support the Challenge ........................................................ 5
`THE ‘035 PATENT ......................................................................................... 6
`The Preferred Embodiment of the ‘035 Patent ............................................ 6
`Reexamination of the ‘035 Patent and the Parent and Grandparent of the
`‘035 Patent .................................................................................................... 7
`VI. BROADEST REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION ........................................ 9
`VII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ....................................................... 11
`Claims 1-14 are Rendered Obvious by 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by CRD-5500
`A.
`User Manual in view of CRD-5500 Data Sheet and Smith ....................... 11
`Introduction of the CRD-5500 References ................................................ 11
`1.
`Introduction of the Smith Reference .......................................................... 15
`2.
`3. The Combined System of CRD-5500 User Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet
`and Smith .................................................................................................... 16
`4. Correspondence Between Claims 1-14 and the Combined System of CRD-
`5500 User Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet and Smith .............................. 18
`
`V.
`A.
`B.
`
` 
`
`ii
`
`

`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Claims 1-4 and 7-14 Are Rendered Obvious by Kikuchi taken in
`Combination with Bergsten ........................................................................ 28
`Introduction of the Kikuchi Reference ....................................................... 28
`1.
`Introduction of the Bergsten Reference ..................................................... 29
`2.
`3. The Combined System of Kikuchi and Bergsten ....................................... 31
`4. Correspondence Between Claims 1-4 and 7-14 and the Combined System
`of Kikuchi and Bergsten ............................................................................. 34
`Claims 5 and 6 Are Rendered Obvious by Kikuchi taken in Combination
`with Bergsten and Smith ............................................................................. 42
`Claims 1-4 and 7-14 Are Rendered Obvious by Bergsten taken in
`Combination with Hirai ............................................................................. 44
`Introduction of the Hirai Reference ........................................................... 44
`1.
`2. The Combined System of Bergsten and Hirai ........................................... 45
`3. Correspondence Between Claims 1-4 and 7-14 and the Combined System
`of Bergsten and Hirai ................................................................................ 49
`Claims 5 and 6 Are Rendered Obvious by Bergsten taken in Combination
`with Hirai and Smith .................................................................................. 56
`VIII. EXPLANATION OF NON-REDUNDANCY .............................................. 58
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`E.
`
` 
`
`iii
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035 (“the ‘035 Patent”)
`
`Select Portions of File History of the ‘035 Patent
`
`CRD-5500 SCSI RAID Controller User’s Manual (“CRD-5500 User
`Manual”)
`
`CRD-5500 SCSI RAID Controller Data Sheet (“CRD-5500 Data
`Sheet”)
`
`Smith et al., Tachyon: A Gigabit Fibre Channel Protocol Chip,
`Hewlett-Packard Journal, October 1996 (“Smith”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,219,771 to Kikuchi et al. (“Kikuchi”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,073,209 to Bergsten (“Bergsten”)
`
`JP Patent Application Publication No. Hei 5[1993]-181609 to Hirai
`(“Hirai”)
`
`Infringement Contentions in Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Oracle
`Corporation, W.D. Tex. Case No. 1-13-cv-00895, Crossroads
`Systems, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al., W.D. Tex.
`Case No. 1-13-cv-01025, and Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. NetApp,
`Inc., W.D. Tex. Case No. 1-14-cv-00149
`
`Declaration of Professor Chase, Professor of Computer Science at
`Duke University
`
`Cheating the I/O Bottleneck: Network Storage with Trapeze/Myrinet
`
`Interposed Request Routing for Scalable Network Storage
`
`Cut-Through Delivery in Trapeze: An Exercise in Low-Latency
`Messaging
`
`Structure and Performance of the Direct Access File System
`
`Implementing Cooperative Prefetching and Caching in a Globally-
`Managed Memory System
`
`iv
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`
`1025
`
`
`1026
`
`
`1027
`
`
`1028
`
`
`
` 
`
`Network I/O with Trapeze
`
`A Cost-Effective, High-Bandwidth Storage Architecture
`
`RAID-II: A High-Bandwidth Network File Server
`
`Payload Caching: High-Speed Data Forwarding for Network
`Intermediaries
`
`Petal: Distributed Virtual Disks
`
`File Server Scaling with Network-Attached Secure Disks
`
`Failure-Atomic File Access in an Interposed Network Storage System
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,308,228 to Yocum et al. (“Yocum”)
`
`
`
`Select Portions of File History of Reexamination Control No.
`90/007,123 (U.S. Patent No. 5,941,972)
`
`Select Portions of the File History of Reexamination Control No.
`90/007,124 (U.S. Patent No. 6,421,753)
`
`Plaintiff Crossroads Systems, Inc.’s Objections and Responses to
`Defendants’ First Set of Common Interrogatories in Crossroads
`Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation, W.D. Tex. Case No. 1-13-cv-
`00895, Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et
`al., W.D. Tex. Case No. 1-13-cv-01025, and Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`v. NetApp, Inc., W.D. Tex. Case No. 1-14-cv-00149
`
`Storagepath Fibre Channel Drive System, SWS/Storagepath,
`available at
`web.archive.org/web/19970114010450/http://www.storagepath.com/fi
`bre.htm, archived January 14, 1997
`
`Technology Brief Strategic Direction for Compaq Fibre Channel-
`Attached Storage, Compaq Computer Corporation, October 14, 1997
`
`v
`
`

`
`1029
`
`
`1030
`
`
`1031
`
`
`
`
`1032
`
`
`1033
`
`
`1034
`
`
`1035
`
`
`1036
`
`
`1037
`
`
`
` 
`
`Tantawy (ed.), Fibre Channel (Ch. 5) of High Performance Networks,
`Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994
`
`Deel et al., Moving Uncompressed Video Faster Than Real Time,
`Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, Inc., December
`1996
`
`Emulex LightPulse Fibre Channel PCI Host Adapter, Emulex
`Corporation, available at
`web.archive.org/web/19980213052222/http://www.emulex.com/fc/lig
`htpulse2.htm, archived February 13, 1998
`
`Select Portions of File History of Reexamination Control Nos.
`90/007,125 and 90/007,317 (U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035)
`
`Local Area Networks Newsletter, Vol. 15, No. 2, Information
`Gatekeepers Inc., February 1997
`
`Litigation Complaint in Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Oracle
`Corporation, W.D. Tex. Case No. 1-13-cv-00895
`
`Litigation Complaint in Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Huawei
`Technologies Co. Ltd. et al., W.D. Tex. Case No. 1-13-cv-01025
`
`Litigation Complaint in Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. NetApp, Inc.,
`W.D. Tex. Case No. 1-14-cv-00149
`
`Declaration of Monica S. Ullagaddi authenticating Ex. 1004, Ex. 1027
`and Ex. 1031
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
` Petitioners Oracle Corporation, NetApp Inc., and Huawei Technologies Co.,
`
`Ltd. (“Petitioners”) respectfully request inter partes review for claims 1-14 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,425,035 (“the ‘035 Patent”, attached as Ex. 1001) in accordance with
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. The ‘035 Patent is directed to
`
`a storage router that serves as a bridge between Fibre Channel host devices and
`
`storage devices. More specifically, the ‘035 Patent states that “the storage router of
`
`the present invention is a bridge device that … enables the exchange of SCSI
`
`command set information between application clients on SCSI bus devices and the
`
`Fibre Channel links.” (Ex. 1001 at 5:34-38) The ‘035 Patent explains that this
`
`method is accomplished with native low level block protocols (NLLBP), which
`
`enhances system performance because such an approach “does not involve the
`
`overhead of high level protocols and file systems required by network servers.”
`
`(Id. at 5:1-5) The “storage router [also] applies access controls such that virtual
`
`local storage can be established in remote SCSI storage devices for workstations
`
`on the Fibre Channel link.” (Id. at 5:38-41)
`
`Systems corresponding closely to the ‘035 Patent’s preferred embodiment
`
`were taught by prior art which were not before the Examiner or were not applied in
`
`a prior art rejection. The CRD-5500 SCSI RAID Controller by CMD Technology,
`
`Inc. was detailed in product manuals and data sheets released more than a year
`
` 
`
`1
`
`

`
`before the earliest priority date. Additionally, several other combinations of
`
`priority art predictably yield combined systems in which a storage controller
`
`bridges between a Fibre Channel (“FC”) host device and a storage disk array and
`
`provides access controls and virtual local storage for host devices connected to FC
`
`transport links. For instance, a skilled artisan would have readily combined the
`
`teaching of access controls in U.S. Patent No. 6,219,771 to Kikuchi with the
`
`virtualized storage controllers taught in U.S. Patent No. 6,073,209 to Bergsten.
`
`(See Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 87-98) The access control techniques taught in JP Patent
`
`Application Publication No. Hei 5[1993]-181609 to Hirai would likewise have
`
`been readily and predictably combined with the storage controllers of Bergsten
`
`system. (See Ex. 1010 at ¶¶ 144-51)
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1), Petitioners provide the following
`
`mandatory disclosures.
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioners certify that Oracle
`
`Corporation, NetApp Inc., and Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. are the real parties-
`
`in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioners state that the ‘035 Patent is
`
`asserted in co-pending litigation matters captioned Crossroads Systems, Inc. v.
`2
`
` 
`
`

`
`Oracle Corporation, W.D. Tex. Case No. 1-13-cv-00895 (Ex. 1034), Crossroads
`
`Systems, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al., W.D. Tex. Case No. 1-13-cv-
`
`01025 (Ex. 1035), and Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. NetApp, Inc., W.D. Tex. Case
`
`No. 1-14-cv-00149 (Ex. 1036). All other related and co-pending litigation matters
`
`are set forth in Exhibit 1026.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioners provide the following
`
`designation of counsel: Lead counsel is Greg Gardella (Reg. No. 46,045) and back-
`
`up counsel is Scott A. McKeown (Reg. No. 42,866).
`
`D. Service Information
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning this matter should be
`
`served on the following.
`
`Address: Greg Gardella and Scott McKeown
`Oblon Spivak
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`cpdocketgardella@oblon.com,
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`Telephone: (703) 413-3000
`Fax:
`
`(703) 413-2220
`
`Email:
`
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge to Deposit Account No. 15-
`
`0030 the fee required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition for inter partes
`
`review. The undersigned further authorizes payment for any additional fees that
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`
`might be due in connection with this Petition to be charged to the above referenced
`
`Deposit Account.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`As set forth below and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104, each requirement for
`
`inter partes review of the ‘035Patent is satisfied.
`
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioners hereby certify that the ‘035
`
`Patent is available for inter partes review and that the Petitioners are not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting inter partes review challenging the claims of the ‘035
`
`Patent on the grounds identified herein. The ‘035 Patent has not been subject to a
`
`previous proceeding under the AIA and any complaint served on the Real Parties
`
`in Interest referenced above in Section II(B) or privies thereof was served within
`
`the last 12 months.
`
`B. Identification of Challenge
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) and (b)(1), Petitioners request inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-14 of the ‘035 Patent, and further requests that the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) invalidate the same.
`
`1. The Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on Which
`the Challenge Is Based
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2), inter partes review of the ‘035 Patent
`
`
`
`is requested in view of the following grounds:
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`
`(a) Claims 1-14 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by the
`
`combination of The CRD-5500 SCSI RAID Controller User’s Manual (“CRD-5500
`
`User Manual”, Ex. 1003), CRD-5500 SCSI RAID Controller Data Sheet (“CRD-
`
`5500 Data Sheet”, Ex. 1004), and Smith et al., Tachyon: A Gigabit Fibre Channel
`
`Protocol Chip, Hewlett-Packard Journal, October 1996 (“Smith”, Ex. 1005);
`
`(b) Claims 1-4 and 7-14 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`by U.S. Patent No. 6,219,771 to Kikuchi et al. (“Kikuchi”, Ex. 1006) in view of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,073,209 to Bergsten (“Bergsten”, Ex. 1007);
`
`(c) Claims 5 and 6 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
`
`Kikuchi in view of Bergsten and Smith;
`
`
`
`(d) Claims 1-4 and 7-14 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`by Bergsten in view of JP Patent Application Publication No. Hei 5[1993]-181609
`
`to Hirai (“Hirai”, Ex. 1008); and
`
`(e) Claims 5 and 6 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
`
`Bergsten in view of Hirai and Smith.
`
`2. How the Construed Claims Are Unpatentable Under
`the Statutory Grounds Identified in 37 C.F.R. §
`42.204(b)(2) and Supporting Evidence Relied Upon to
`Support the Challenge
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(4), an explanation of how claims 1-14 of
`
`the ‘035 Patent are unpatentable, including the identification of where each claim
`
`element is found in the prior art, is provided in Section VII below. Pursuant to 37
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`
`C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(5), the exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon
`
`to support the challenges and the relevance of the evidence to the challenges
`
`raised, including identifying specific portions that support the challenges, are
`
`provided in Section VII.
`
`V.
`
`THE ‘035 PATENT
`A. The Preferred Embodiment of the ‘035 Patent
`The ‘035 Patent specification states that “the storage router of the present
`
`invention is a bridge device that…enables the exchange of SCSI command set
`
`information between application clients on SCSI bus devices and the Fibre
`
`Channel links.” (Ex. 1001 at 5:34-38) According to this preferred embodiment,
`
`“storage network 50 includes a Fibre Channel high speed serial interconnect 52”
`
`(id. at 3:66-4:2) and a storage router 56 that enables “a large number of
`
`workstations 58 to be interconnected on a common storage transport and to access
`
`common storage devices 60, 62 and 64 through native low level, block protocols”
`
`(id. at 4:2-6).
`
` Storage router 56 also includes “enhanced functionality to implement
`
`security controls and routing such that each workstation 58 can have access to a
`
`specific subset of the overall data stored in storage devices 60, 62 and 64” which
`
`“has the appearance and characteristics of local storage and is referred to…as
`
`virtual local storage.” (Id. at 4:7-13) Storage router 56 performs access control and
`
` 
`
`6
`
`

`
`routing “such that each workstation 58 has controlled access to only the specified
`
`partition of storage device 62 which forms virtual local storage for the workstation
`
`58.” (Id. at 4:29-31)
`
`“To accomplish this function, storage router 56 can include routing tables
`
`and security controls that define storage allocation for each workstation 58.” (Id. at
`
`4:62-64) This provides the advantage that “collective backups and other collective
`
`administrative functions” may be performed “more easily.” (Id. at 4:64-5:1)
`
`Further, “[b]ecause storage access involves native low level, block protocols and
`
`does not involve the overhead of high level protocols and file systems required by
`
`network servers, ” this approach does not impede or slow system performance. (Id.
`
`at 5:1-5)
`
`B. Reexamination of the ‘035 Patent and the Parent and
`Grandparent of the ‘035 Patent
`The ‘035 Patent was challenged in an ex parte reexamination (see Ex. 1032)
`
`in which the Patent Owner distinguished over Spring and Oeda. (See id. at pp. 82-
`
`116, Patent Owner’s Response dated July 22, 2005 at pp. 7-41) More particularly,
`
`the Patent Owner argued that “Spring and Oeda…either do not provide remote
`
`access to storage devices or, for embodiments of those systems that may be able to
`
`provide remote access to storage devices, require the use of higher level network
`
`protocols (and therefore cannot allow access to the remote storage devices using
`
` 
`
`7
`
`

`
`NLLBPs)” and, further, that “Spring and Oeda fail to disclose mapping and access
`
`controls.” (Id. at p. 91, Patent Owner’s Response dated July 22, 2005 at p. 16)
`
`In response to this argument, the Examiner issued a NIRC which provided
`
`the following reasons for confirmation:
`
`The prior art disclosed by the patent owner and cited by the
`Examiner fail to teach or suggest, alone or in combination, all the
`limitations of the independent claims (claims 1, 7 and 11),
`particularly the map/mapping feature which is a one-to-one
`correspondence, as given in a simple table, the map physically
`resident on a router, whereby the router forms the connection
`between two separate entities over different transport mediums,
`such that neither entity determines where data is to be sent, but
`rather, the router solely dictates where the data will be sent; also the
`‘NLLBP’ feature referring to a fundamental low level protocol
`defined by a specification/standard that is well known to one of
`ordinary skill in the art, where the NLLBP is used at the router for
`communications with both the first and second transport medium.
`The SCSI protocol/standard is considered a NLLBP. TCP/IP, e.g.,
`used in Ethernet communications, however, is not considered to be
`a NLLBP. (Id. at p. 13, Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexam
`Certificate “NIRC” at p. 3)
`
`As such, the Examiner agreed that Spring’s Ethernet-to-SCSI system did not
`
`satisfy the NLLBP limitation because the Ethernet side of the bridge used TCP/IP.
`
`(Id.) The Examiner also found that Spring’s Ethernet-to-SCSI bridge did not teach
`
` 
`
`8
`
`

`
`a map/mapping feature that is a one-to-one correspondence given in a simple table.
`
`(Id.) Furthermore, in these related reexaminations of grandparent U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,941,972 and parent U.S. Patent No. 6,421,753, the Patent Owner argued that
`
`Spring’s “Ethernet-to-SCSI system does not allow access using NLLBP.” (See Ex.
`
`1024 at pp. 2066-67, Patent Owner’s Response dated July 22, 2005 at pp. 21-22;
`
`see Ex. 1025 at pp. 498-99, Patent Owner’s Response dated July 22, 2005 at pp.
`
`19-20) The Examiner presented near identical comments in NIRCs issued in the
`
`reexaminations of grandparent U.S. Patent No. 5,941,972 and parent U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,421,753.
`
`VI. BROADEST REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION
`
`Petitioners base this petition upon the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s
`
`(“USPTO”) “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard applied in PTAB
`
`proceedings. All claimed terms not specifically addressed in this section have been
`
`accorded their “broadest reasonable interpretation” in light of the ‘035 Patent
`
`including their plain and ordinary meaning. Petitioners’ position regarding the
`
`scope of the claims under their “broadest reasonable interpretation” is not to be
`
`taken as stating any position regarding the appropriate scope to be given the claims
`
`in a court or other adjudicative body under the different claim interpretation
`
`standards that may apply to such proceedings. In particular, Petitioners note that
`
`the standard for claim construction used in district courts differs from the standard
`
` 
`
`9
`
`

`
`applied before the USPTO. Any claim construction offered by Petitioners in this
`
`petition is directed to the USPTO standard, and Petitioners do not acquiesce or
`
`admit to the constructions reflected herein for any purpose outside of this
`
`proceeding.
`
` “Native low-level block protocol” is described in the ‘035 Patent as being
`
`distinct from higher-level protocols that require translation to NLLBP. (Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:15-28; 3:14-25 and 5:1-5) Examples of NLLBPs in the ‘035 Patent include
`
`SCSI-2 commands and SCSI-3 Fibre Channel Protocol (“FCP”) commands. (See
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001 at 6:39-58) The ‘035 Patent distinguishes prior art systems that
`
`provided access “through network protocols that the [network] server must
`
`translate into low level requests to the storage device.” (Id. at 1:51-54)
`
`During the reexamination of the parent patent the Patent Owner argued that
`
`a NLLBP is “a set of rules or standards that enable computers to exchange
`
`information and do not involve the overhead of high level protocols and file
`
`systems typically required by network servers,” citing the Markman Order of the
`
`U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Crossroads v. Chaparral
`
`Network Storage, Inc., Civil Action No. A-00-CA-217-SS and Crossroads Systems
`
`(Texas), Inc., v. Pathlight Technology, Inc., Civil Action No. A-00CA-248-JN.
`
`(Ex. 1025 at p. 500, Patent Owner Response at p. 21) Consistent with this, the
`
`Examiner found that “[t]he SCSI protocol/standard is considered a NLLBP.
`
` 
`
`10
`
`

`
`TCP/IP, e.g., used in Ethernet communications, however, is not considered to be a
`
`NLLBP.” (Id. at p. 14, “NIRC” at p. 3)
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the broadest reasonable interpretation of NLLBP
`
`includes a protocol, such as the SCSI protocol for SCSI commands, that enables
`
`the exchange of information without the overhead of high-level protocols and file
`
`systems typically required by network servers.
`
`VII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`
`
`The explanations set forth below summarize the grounds of unpatentability.
`
`Each reference is introduced in turn and those introductions are followed by an
`
`explanation of the combined system or method and the supporting rationale.
`
`Thereafter, the correspondence between the combined system or method and each
`
`claim element is explained. Pinpoint citations are provided to the declaration of
`
`Professor Chase (Ex. 1010), which describes in further detail the combined system,
`
`supporting rationale, and the correspondence to the claimed subject matter.
`
`A. Claims 1-14 are Rendered Obvious by 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
`CRD-5500 User Manual in view of CRD-5500 Data Sheet and
`Smith
`1. Introduction of the CRD-5500 References
`The CRD-5500 SCSI RAID Controller User Manual (“CRD-5500 User
`
`Manual”, Ex. 1003) and CRD-5500 SCSI RAID Controller Data Sheet (“CRD-
`
`5500 Data Sheet”, Ex. 1004) were published on November 21, 1996 and December
`
` 
`
`11
`
`

`
`26, 1996, respectively, over a year before the earliest priority date of the ‘035
`
`Patent (December 31, 1997). Therefore, the CRD-5500 User Manual and CRD-
`
`5500 Data Sheet are prior art to the ‘035 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). The
`
`CRD-5500 User Manual was before the Examiner but was not discussed by the
`
`Examiner in any office action or referenced in any rejection. The Patent Owner
`
`initially presented the CRD-5500 User Manual in the list of references submitted
`
`in relation to the ex parte reexamination of parent patent U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,421,753. (See Ex. 1025 at p. 649, List of References Cited by Application dated
`
`May 24, 2005) The CRD-5500 Data Sheet has never been before an Examiner.
`
`The CRD-5500 User Manual may be presumed authentic under Fed.R.Evid.
`
`901(b)(4) given that it was submitted by the Patent Owner as prior art and is self-
`
`authenticating under Fed.R.Evid. 902(7) given that it bears trade inscriptions
`
`demonstrating that the document is a publication by CMD Technology, Inc.
`
`released on a date certain. The CRD-5500 Data Sheet is authenticated by the
`
`declaration of Monica S. Ullagaddi (Ex. 1037).
`
`The CRD-5500 User Manual describes a RAID controller which couples
`
`one or more host devices to virtual local storage on a RAID storage disk array. (Ex.
`
`1003 at 1-1) Devices are connected to the CRD-5500 controller through a number
`
`of I/O module slots configured to receive both host device interface modules and
`
`storage device interface modules. (Id. at 2-1)
`
` 
`
`12
`
`

`
`Figure 1-1 of the CRD-5500 User Manual illustrates how the controller's
`
`RAID set configuration utility can be used to configure virtual or logical storage
`
`regions by assigning individual disk drives to RAID sets and partitioning the RAID
`
`sets into logical storage regions called redundancy groups. (Ex. 1003 at 1-2) Each
`
`redundancy group may have a particular purpose and, as such, a particular
`
`configuration including, in some examples, striped partitions, data mirroring, or a
`
`combination thereof. (Id.; see also id. at 1-5 and 1-7)
`
`The CRD-5500 controller’s “‘Host LUN [Logical Unit Number] Mapping’
`
`feature makes it possible to map RAID sets” or redundancy groups (a RAID set
`
`or portion/partition thereof) “differently to each host.” (Id. at 1-1; see also id. at
`
`1-10; see also id. at 4-5) As illustrated in the “Host LUN Mapping” utility
`
`disclosed in the CRD-5500 User Manual, a particular host device (identified as
`
`“Channel 0”) is allotted access to one or more RAID redundancy groups (e.g.,
`
`redundancy groups 0, 1, 5, and 6 through 31). The host device is provided an
`
`address for accessing each RAID redundancy group through a “Host LUN”
`
`(logical unit number, an addressing mechanism). (See e.g., id. at 4-5; 4-10; and
`
`6-10) An administrator can allocate a particular disk as a redundancy group, such
`
`that a host LUN maps to a single physical disk or partition thereof. (See, e.g., id.
`
`at 2-3, 2-4, 3-3, 3-4). Accordingly, the “Host LUN Mapping” utility of the CRD-
`
`5500 controller provides virtual local storage to a host device by presenting
`
` 
`
`13
`
`

`
`access to one or more RAID redundancy groups using LUN-based addressing.
`
`(Id. at 4-5) Further, the “Host LUN Mapping” utility allows the CRD-5500
`
`controller to restrict a particular host’s access to a given memory region on the
`
`RAID array by withholding addresses (i.e., “Host LUNs”) for particular RAID
`
`redundancy groups to that host (e.g., redundancy groups 2 through 4 have been
`
`excluded from the list of redundancy groups for which Host LUNs have been
`
`assigned to the host illustrated). (See id.; see also id. at 1-1, “You make the same
`
`redundancy group show up on different LUNs to different hosts, or make a
`
`redundancy group visible to one host but not to another.”; id. at 1-11, “[T]he
`
`CRD-5500 defines each RAID set or partition of a RAID set as a ‘redundancy
`
`group.’ These redundancy groups may be mapped to host LUNs, either in a direct
`
`one-to-one relationship or in a manner defined by the user.”)
`
`The CRD-5500 Data Sheet notes that the modular design of the CRD-5500
`
`controller supports interfacing with host and/or storage devices via a high speed
`
`serial connection such as a FC transport medium:
`
`Unlike other RAID controllers, CMD's advanced ‘Viper’ RAID
`architecture and ASICs were designed to support tomorrow's
`high speed serial interfaces, such as Fiberchannel (FCAL). (Ex.
`1004 at p. 1 (emphasis added))
`
` 
`
`14
`
`

`
`2. Introduction of the Smith Reference
`Smith et al., Tachyon: A Gigabit Fibre Channel Protocol Chip, Hewlett-
`
`
`
`Packard Journal, October 1996 (“Smith”) was published in October of 1996,
`
`over a year before the earliest priority date of the ‘035 Patent (December 31,
`
`1997). Smith is therefore prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`
`
`Smith describes the off-the-shelf Tachyon controller which is used in the
`
`preferred embodiment of the ‘035 Patent. (Ex. 1001 at 6:5) The Tachyon chip is
`
`designed to serve as, among other things, a target adapter between FC host devices
`
`and, for example, a SCSI-based storage router by de-encapsulating SCSI
`
`commands and responses received at the storage router for internal processing and
`
`by encapsulating the SCSI commands and responses prior to sending over a FC
`
`link connected a FC device. (Ex. 1005 at 4) Indeed,
`
`[t]he second major design goal was that Tachyon should support
`SCSI encapsulation over Fibre Channel (known as FCP). From the
`beginning of the project, Tachyon designers created SCSI assists to
`support SCSI initiator transactions.…Early in the design, Tachyon
`only supported SCSI initiator functionality with its SCSI hardware
`assists. It became evident from customer feedback, however, that
`Tachyon must support SCSI target functionality as well, so SCSI
`target functionality was added to Tachyon hardware assists. (Id.)
`
` 
`
`15
`
`

`
`3. The Combined System of CRD-5500 User Manual,
`CRD-5500 Data Sheet and Smith
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
`
`CRD-5500 User Manual, the CRD-5500 Data Sheet, and Smith to enhance the
`
`communication and storage options of a host device on a FC transport medium,
`
`benefit from the “Host LUN Mapping” feature of the CRD-5500 controller, and
`
`avail the host computing device of ubiquitous mass storage applications (e.g.,
`
`RAID). (Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 39-43) This combination is specifically suggested in the
`
`CRD-5500 Data Sheet, which explains that “CMD’s advanced ‘Viper’ RAID
`
`architecture and ASICs were designed to support tomorrow's high speed serial
`
`interfaces, such as Fiberchannel.” (Ex. 1004 at p. 1) Fibre Channel’s high
`
`bandwidth and capability to extend the distances between hosts and the storage
`
`controller each provided a strong motivation to adopt the CRD-5500 Data Sheet’s
`
`suggestion to enhance the CRD-5500 controller with FC connectivity for host
`
`and/or storage device modules designed with Tachyon chips. (See generally Ex.
`
`1004 at pp. 1-2)
`
`In the combined system, the Tachyon chip is incorporated into FC-enabled
`
`host device interface modules installed in I/O slots of the CRD-5500 controller.
`
`(See e.g., Ex. 1010 at ¶ 46) Professor Chase explains that the Tachyon chip
`
`encapsulates and de-encapsulates SCSI commands transported over FC media to
`
`enable intercommunication between FC host devices and SCSI-based storage
`
` 
`
`16
`
`

`
`device arrays on FC transport media. (See e.g., id. at ¶¶ 36, 38, 41- 45; see also
`
`Ex. 1004 at pp. 1-2) The CRD-5500 controller, in the combined system, is
`
`configured to provide virtual local storage to up to four FC host device interface
`
`modules (each interfacing
`
`with a host computing
`
`device) through the “Host
`
`LUN Mapping” feature.
`
`(See e.g