`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION,
`NETAPP INC. and
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01207
`Patent 7,051,147
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PETITION
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.12
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`THE ’147 PATENT CLAIMS A NOVEL SYSTEM TO PROVIDE
`ACCESS CONTROLS TO VIRTUAL STORAGE ....................... 1 
`
`A.  Background of the Invention ....................................................... 1
`
`B.  The Claimed Inventions ............................................................... 1 
`
`1. The “Map” Limitations ................................................................ 2 
`
`2.The “Access Controls” Limitations .............................................. 3 
`
`3.The “Control Access . . . using NLLBP” Limitations ................. 4 
`
`II. 
`
`PETITIONERS’ COMBINATION OF BERGSTEN AND HIRAI
`DOES NOT ESTABLISH UNPATENTABILITY OF THE CLAIMS . 5 
`
`A.  Claim 14 of the ‘147 Patent is Different than the Prior Art ..... 6 
`
`1.The Combination of Bergsten and Hirai Does Not “Allow
`Access . . . Using NLLBP” ............................................................................. 6 
`
`(a) Hirai’s Access Rights Utilize High Level File System Protocols
`and Therefore Cannot “Control Access” or “Implement Access
`Controls” “… Using NLLBP” ............................................................. 8
`
`(b) Petitioners Must Pick and Choose among Hirai’s Access
`Rights and Cannot Explain how the Combination of Bergsten and
`Hirai as a whole, would “Allow Access . . . Using NLLBP” ............ 10
`
`(c) The Combination of Bergsten and Hirai Teaches Nothing
`More Than Prior Art Servers ............................................................ 12
`
`2.Petitioners’ Combination Does Not Teach the Claimed
`“Map” ........................................................................................................... 14 
`
`3.The Combination Cannot Possess the Claimed “Access
`Controls” Because Bergsten’s Emulation Driver Prevents Host
`Identity from Reaching any Map ............................................................... 15 
`
`B.  Petitioners Have Failed to Meet Their Burden to Support An
`Obviousness Challenge ................................................................................ 17 
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`1.Petitioners Have not Shown that Bergsten and Hirai Can
`be Combined with a Reasonable Expectation of Success ........................ 17 
`
`2.Petitioners’ Asserted Motivation to Combine is Deficient
`Because it Undermines the Stated Premise of Bergsten .......................... 18 
`
`III.  Petitioners’ combination of Kikuchi and Bergsten DOES NOT
`ESTABLISH UNPATENTABILITY OF THE CLAIMS .................... 20 
`
`A.  Kikuchi Is Not Prior Art To The Patent .................................. 20 
`
`B.  Kikuchi does not Include the Claimed “Map” or “Access
`Controls” ............................................................................................ 25 
`
`
`
`1. Kikuchi’s Simple Address Offset is Designed to Create
` Different “Partitions” of a Physical Storage Device ........................... 26 
`
`2.Kikuchi’s Address Offset Mechanism Does Not Provide
`The Claimed Map Or Access Controls ...................................................... 27 
`
`C.  The Asserted Combination Impermissibly “Enhances” Both
`References by Ignoring their Purposes and Modifying their Principles
`of Operation ................................................................................................. 28 
`
`1. . A Person Of Ordinary Skill Would Not Combine The Kikuchi
`And Bergsten References As Proposed By Petitioner .............................. 28 
`
`(a) Petitioners’ Proposed, Yet Unsupported, Combination Is
`Highly Complex .......................................................................................... 28
`
`(b) Petitioners’ Highly Complex Combination Destroys the
`Intended Purpose of Both References and Impermissibly Modifies
`their Principles of Operation .................................................................... 30
`
`2. When Properly Interpreted Kikuchi And Bergsten Create
`A System That Does Not Have Access Controls ....................................... 32 
`
`D.  The Asserted Combination Does Not Implement Access
`Controls Because Bergsten’s Emulation Driver Prevents Host Identity
`from Reaching any Map .............................................................................. 34 
`
`E.  Petitioners Failed To Meet Their Obviousness Burden ......... 34 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IV.  PETITIONERS’ COMBINATION OF the CRD-5500 User’s Manual,
`CRD-5500 Data SHEET, and SMITH DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE
`UNPATENTABILITY OF ANY CLAIMS ............................................ 36 
`
`A.  The Combined System Does Not Disclose The Claimed
`Subject Matter ............................................................................................. 37 
`
`1. The CRD-5500 Manual and Smith Do Not Show A Map
`Between A Device Connected to First Transport Medium and the
`Remote Storage ............................................................................................ 41 
`
`2. The Petition Does Not Show the Claimed Access
`Controls/Controlling Access Limitations .................................................. 47 
`
`B.  Claims 15 And 22 Of The ’147 Patent ...................................... 50 
`
`C.  Claims 17, 24 And 36 Of The ’147 Patent. ............................... 50 
`
`D.  No Evidence Exists That The CRD-5500 Could Accommodate
`Smith’s Tachyon Chip FC Host Interface ................................................. 51 
`
`E.  Petitioners Reasons For Combining Do Not Lead to the
`Claimed Invention ....................................................................................... 53 
`
`V.  Remaining Claims of the ’147 Patent ..................................................... 54 
`
`VI.  Objective Evidence DemonstrateS the Nonobviousness of the Invention
`
`55 
`
`A.  Long Felt Need ............................................................................ 56 
`
`B.  Commercial Success and Licensing .......................................... 56 
`
`VII.  CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 60 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`B&H Mfg. v. Foster-Forbes Glass Co.,
` 26 U.S.P.Q.2D 1066 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 6, 1993) ..................................................... 59
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................... 19
`
`Crossroads Systems (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc.,
` 56 Fed. Appx. 502 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... 58
`
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing, Ltd.,
` 851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988)............................................................................ 56
`
`Fleming v. Escort Inc., 774 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................... 21
`
`Griffith v. Kanamaru, 816 F.2d 624 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................. 20
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig.,
` 676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................ 55
`
`In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................... 19, 32
`
`In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................. 12
`
`In re Hedges, 763 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .................................................... 8, 11
`
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................. 19
`
`In re Ratti, 270 F.3d 810 (CCPA 1959) ................................................................... 31
`
`In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238 (CCPA 1965) ............................................................. 11
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............... 19, 35
`
`Jones v. Evans, 46 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1931) ............................................................. 21
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`Keizer v. Bradley, 270 F.2d 396 (C.C.P.A. 1959) ................................................... 24
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
` 688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................... 19, 35
`
`Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................. 20
`
`Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc.,
` 976 F.2d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1992)............................................................................ 59
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................. 55
`
`Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 252 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .... 21
`
`Norman Int’l Inc. v. Hunter Douglas Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00276, Paper 11 (PTAB June 20, 2014) .............................................. 19
`
`Par Pharma, Inc. v. TWI Pharma, Inc. 773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................. 17
`
`Plas-Pak Indus. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
` No. 2014-1447, 2015 WL 328222 (Fed. Cir. Jan 27, 2015) ......................... 31, 32
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................. 55
`
`RCA Corp. v. Data General Corp.,
` 701 F. Supp. 456 (D. Del. 1988) .......................................................................... 59
`
`Rey-Bellet v. Engelhardt, 493 F.2d 1380 (CCPA 1974) .......................................... 21
`
`Sandisk Corp. v. Lexar Media, 91 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (N.D. Cal. 2000) ................... 59
`
`Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................... 6
`
`Sanofi-Synthelabo, 550 F.3d at 1088 ....................................................................... 34
`
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ........................ 55
`
`Thompson v. Dunn, 166 F.2d 443 (C.C.P.A. 1948) ................................................. 24
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
` 774 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014).............................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
`
`Greene’s Energy Group, LLC v. Oil States Energy Services, LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00364, Paper 37 (PTAB May 1, 2015) ......................................... 12, 14
`
`Unified Patents Inc. v. CRFD Research, Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00157 Paper 8 (April 30, 2015) ............................................................ 19
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 316
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`IPR2014-01207
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,941,972 (the “’972 patent”)
`
`District Court Order (denying motion for summary judgment of
`invalidity based on Kikuchi), Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v.
`Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., C.A. No. 00-cv-00217-SS
`(W.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2001)
`
`Final Judgment, Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral
`Network Storage, Inc., C.A. No. 00-cv-00217-SS (W.D. Tex. Oct.
`11, 2001)
`
`Markman Order, Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral
`Network Storage, Inc., C.A. No. 00-cv-00217-SS (W.D. Tex. Jul.
`27, 2000) & Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Pathlight
`Technology, Inc., C.A. No. 00-cv-00248-SS (W.D. Tex. Jul. 27,
`2000)
`
`Markman Order, Crossroads Systems (Texas), Inc. v. Dot Hill
`Systems Corp., C.A. No. 03-cv-00754-SS (W.D. Tex. Nov. 4,
`2005)
`
`Report and Recommendation of Special Master re: Claim
`Construction, Crossroads Systems (Texas), Inc. v. Dot Hill
`Systems Corp., C.A. No. 03-cv-00754-SS (W.D. Tex. Jan. 21,
`2005)
`
`Markman Order, Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3Par, Inc., C.A. No.
`10-cv-00652-SS (W.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2011)
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit No. Description
`
`
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`Report and Recommendation of Special Master re: Claim
`Construction, Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3Par, Inc., C.A. No. 10-
`cv-00652-SS (W.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2011)
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart submitted in Pending Litigation in
`Western District of Texas by Crossroads and Petitioners
`
`Declaration of Janice Pampell
`
`CRD-5500, RAID DISK ARRAY CONTROLLER Product Insert,
`pp. 1-5
`
`Excerpt from File History of Reexamination Control No.
`90/001,125 (U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035)
`
`Claim Chart Comparing MaxStrat Gen5 S-Series XL to ‘035
`Patent Claims, Exhibit 10 to July 19, 2004 Ex Parte
`Reexamination Request in Reexamination Control No. 90/001,125
`
`Claim Chart Comparing U.S. Patent No. 6,219,771 (Kikuchi) to
`‘035 Patent Claims, excerpted from Exhibit 22 to July 19, 2004 Ex
`Parte Reexamination Request in Reexamination Control No.
`90/001,125
`
`Claim Chart Comparing U.S. Patent No. 6,073,209 (Bergsten) to
`‘035 Patent Claims, excerpted from Exhibit 22 to July 19, 2004 Ex
`Parte Reexamination Request in Reexamination Control No.
`90/001,125
`
`Hewlett Packard, TACHYON HPFC-5000 User’s Manual, May
`1996
`
`CMD Technology, CRD-5500 RAID Controller Brochure, May
`1999
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit No. Description
`
`
`
`2018-2028
`
`2029
`
`2030-31
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`
`2039
`
`2040
`
`[Reserved]
`
`October 6, 2014 Markman Hearing Transcript
`Crossroads Sys., Inc. v. Multiple Defendants
`(co-pending litigation in W.D. Tex.)
`
`[Reserved]
`
`Defendants’ Joint Claim Construction Brief
`(co-pending litigation, W. D. Tex.)
`
`July 31, 2014 Declaration of Randy Katz regarding Claim
`Construction (including exhibits)
`(co-pending litigation, W.D. Tex.).
`
`Special Master’s Recommended Constructions
`(co-pending litigation, W.D. Tex.)
`
`Crossroads Industry Awards
`
`Sept. 7, 2012 Strongbox Engineering Excellence Award
`Announcement
`
`Small Computer System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994
`
`Randy H. Katz, High Performance Network and Channel-Based
`Storage, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 80, No. 8, August 1992
`
`[Reserved]
`
`Tree Illustration with annotations from Jeffrey Chase, Ph.D.
`(unfiled, referenced in April 3, 2015 Chase Deposition)
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Exhibit No. Description
`
`
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`2046
`
`2047
`
`2048
`
`2049
`
`2050
`
`2051
`
`2052
`
`2053
`
`Table Illustration, hand drawn by Scott Crocker
`(unfiled, referenced in April 3, 2015 Chase Deposition)
`
`Figure 2 of Hirai (Ex. 1008 at 6) with annotations
` by Jeffrey Chase, Ph.D.
`(unfiled, referenced in April 4, 2015 Chase Deposition)
`
`Declaration of Brian Bianchi (April 20, 2015)
`
`Exhibit A to Declaration of Brian Bianchi
`Confidential Protective Order Material
`
`Exhibit B to Declaration of Brian Bianchi
`Confidential Protective Order Material
`
`Exhibit C to Declaration of Brian Bianchi
`
`SCSI 3 Architecture Model, ANSI X3.270-1996
`
`NFS: Network File System Version 3 Protocol Specification, Sun
`Microsystems, February 16, 1994
`
`Declaration of Jennifer Ray Crane (April 16, 2015)
`
`Exhibit A to Declaration of Jennifer Ray Crane
`Confidential Protective Order Material
`
`Appendix B to Declaration of Jennifer Ray Crane
`
`Appendix C to Declaration of Jennifer Ray Crane
`Confidential Protective Order Material
`
`Declaration of John Levy, Ph.D.
`
`
`xi
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit No. Description
`
`
`
`2054
`
`2055
`
`2056
`
`2057
`
`2058
`
`2059
`
`2060
`
`2061
`
`2062
`
`2063
`
`2064
`
`Deposition of Jeffrey S. Chase, Ph.D., Cisco Sys., Inc. v.
`Crossroads Sys., Inc., IPR2014-01197, -01207, -01209,
`Vol. I, pp. 1-225 (PTAB April 3, 2015)
`
`Deposition Jeffrey S. Chase, Ph.D., Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Crossroads
`Sys., Inc., IPR2014-01197, -01207, -01209,
`Vol. II, pp. 226-432 (PTAB April 4, 2015)
`
`Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Modern Operating Systems (3rd ed. 2008)
`Chaps 4-5
`
`Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Modern Operating Systems (1st ed. 1992),
`Chaps 1, 4, and 7
`
`M. Satyanarayanan, Integrating Security in Large Distributed
`System, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, Vol. 7, No. 3,
`August 1989, at 247
`
`The Open Group, Protocols for Interworking: XNFS, Version 3W
`(1998)
`
`Deposition of Randy Katz, Ph.D., Crossroads Sys., Inc. v. Multiple
`Defendants
`(co-pending litigation in W.D. Tex. August 9, 2014)
`
`SCSI-3 Block Commands (SBC), ANSI NCITS 306-1998
`
`Fibre Channel Protocol for SCSI (FCP), ANSI X3.269-1996
`
`SCSI-3 Primary Commands (SPC), ANSI X3.301-1997
`
`Fibre Channel Physical and Signaling Interface (FC-PH) revision
`4.3, ANSI working draft, proposed June 1, 1994
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Exhibit No. Description
`
`
`
`September 5, 2014 Stipulated Definitions of Claim Terms (co-
`pending litigation, W.D. Tex.)
`
`[Reserved]
`
`
`May 28, 1997 Fax from Geoffrey Hoese to Anthony Peterman
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc.
`v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS
`(W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`Excerpts from Transcript of Trial in Crossroads Systems, (Texas),
`Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-
`217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`Excerpts from Deposition of Geoff Hoese, August 6, 2001, taken
`in Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network
`Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`July 11, 1997 Letter and Draft Patent Application from Mr.
`Anthony Peterman (Baker & Botts LLP) to Mr. Geoffrey Hoese
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 266 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas),
`Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-
`217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`Excerpts from Deposition of Anthony Peterman, Nov. 14, 2000,
`taken in Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network
`Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`Declaration of John Middleton
`
`Excerpts from Deposition of Geoff Hoese, Sept. 18-19, 2000,
`taken in Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network
`Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001).
`
`
`xiii
`
`2065
`
`2066
`-2299
`
`2300
`
`2301
`
`2302
`
`2303
`
`2304
`
`2305
`
`2306
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit No. Description
`
`
`
`2307
`
`2308
`
`2309
`
`2310
`
`2311
`
`2312
`
`2313
`
`Verrazano FC-SCSI Bridge Product Overview Presentation, June
`19, 1996
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc.
`v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS
`(W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`Verrazano Software Development, Sept. 10, 1996
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc.
`v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS
`(W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`Verrazano: System Structure Drawings, Document Number
`DS04100, Jan. 22, 1997
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc.
`v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS
`(W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`Excerpts from Deposition of Jeffry Russell, Sept. 26, 2000, taken
`in Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network
`Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001).
`
`Conception and Reduction to Practice Timeline (Demonstrative)
`
`Verrazano Bare Board Drawings (latest revisions Sept. 3, 1997)
`CRDS 50579
`
`Engineering/Lab Notebook of Geoff Hoese
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 263 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas),
`Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-
`217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`(Exhibit 12 to Deposition of Geoff Hoese, Sept. 19, 2000, taken in
`Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage,
`Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)).
`
`
`
`
`xiv
`
`

`

`Exhibit No. Description
`
`
`
`Verrazano Enclosure Specification, Revision 2.1, June 5, 1997
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 264 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas),
`Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-
`217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`[Reserved]
`
`CP4x00 Product Specification (Preliminary)
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 267 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas),
`Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-
`217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`(Exhibit 10 to Deposition of Jeffry Russell, Sept. 26, 2000, taken
`in Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network
`Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)).
`
`Verrazano Hardware Architecture, Revision 1.0, Aug. 25, 1997
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 268 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas),
`Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-
`217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`(Exhibit 2 to Deposition of Jeffry Russell, Sept. 26, 2000, taken in
`Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage,
`Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)).
`
`
`Verrazano: System Structure Drawings, Document Number
`DS04100, Sept. 3, 1997
`
`Verrazano Software Architecture, Revision 1.1, Aug. 27, 1997
`
`Verrazano Programmable Device Instructions, Version 1.1, Sept.
`5, 1997
`
`Verrazano Component List and Insertion List Report, Sept. 29,
`1997
`
`
`xv
`
`2314
`
`2315
`
`2316
`
`2317
`
`2318
`
`2319
`
`2320
`
`2321
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit No. Description
`
`
`
`Engineering/Lab Notebook of Geoff Hoese
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 274 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas),
`Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-
`217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`(Exhibit 14 to Deposition of Geoff Hoese, Sept. 19, 2000, taken in
`Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage,
`Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)).
`
`December 31, 1997 Letter and Patent Application from Mr.
`William Hulsey (Baker & Botts LLP) to Mr. Dale Quisenberry
`
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 275 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas),
`Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-
`217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`Declaration of Brian Bianchi (May 26, 2015)
`
`
`2322
`
`2323
`
`2324
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xvi
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`THE ’147 PATENT CLAIMS A NOVEL SYSTEM TO PROVIDE
`ACCESS CONTROLS TO VIRTUAL STORAGE
`A. Background of the Invention
`As described in the Background of the ’147 Patent, computers access local
`
`storage using a native low level block protocol (“NLLBP”), which allows simple
`
`and direct access in a fast and efficient manner. Ex. 1001, 1:51-54; Levy ¶ 38.
`
`Before the invention of the ‘147 Patent, prior art network servers communicated
`
`with storage devices using NLLBPs, while communicating with host computers
`
`exclusively using high level file system protocols. Ex. 1001,3:29-33; Levy ¶¶ 40-
`
`43. This required translation of high level file system commands from the hosts
`
`into NLLBPs, which due to processing time slowed access to remote storage
`
`devices. Ex. 1001, 1:58-61; 3:30-34; see also Levy ¶¶ 42-43, 46. Crossroads’
`
`inventions provided a solution by allowing remote storage access and access
`
`controls while using NLLBPs.
`
`The Claimed Inventions
`
`B.
`The claimed inventions provide centralized access controls between host
`
`computers and virtual local storage on remote storage devices, while allowing
`
`hosts access to the remote storage using NLLBPs. The claimed inventions use a
`
`map to allocate storage to each host. Hosts can send NLLBP access requests for
`
`storage to the storage router instead of high level file system protocol access
`
`requests, improving performance over prior art network servers. Ex. 1001, 5:13-17.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`The “Map” Limitations
`Each independent claim at issue includes a map limitation. (e.g., “according
`
`to a map” (Claim 14)). The “map” associates specific representations of hosts on
`
`one side of the storage router with representations of storage on the other side of
`
`the storage router to define what storage is available to each specific host. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:26-29, 4:35-38, 9:11-17. The “map” must identify the precise host to
`
`which storage has been allocated within the map. Id., see also Levy ¶¶ 51-52. In
`
`Figure 3, workstations 58 are interconnected with storage router 56 by the same
`
`Fibre Channel high speed serial transport. Ex. 1001, 4:13-17. Storage router 56
`
`uses “mapping tables or other mapping techniques” (i.e., a map) to associate each
`
`of Workstations A-D with one of the subsets of storage 66, 68, 70 and 72 and to
`
`associate Workstation E with whole storage device 64, so that each subset “is
`
`allocated to one of the workstations 58” and can be accessed only “by the
`
`associated workstation 58.” Ex. 1001, 4:26-40 (emphasis added); see Levy ¶ 53.
`
`In prior litigation the District Court construed “map/mapping” of the related
`
`’035 Patent, explaining that “[a] ‘map’ contains a representation of devices on
`
`each side of the storage router.” Ex. 1009 at 12 (emphasis added). The Special
`
`Master in the co-pending litigation between the parties here recommended the
`
`District Court once again adopt this construction. Ex. 2034 at 4.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioners’ expert agrees that storage is allocated to “particular” hosts. Ex.
`
`1010 ¶ 18. Petitioners unequivocally stated in the underlying litigation that
`
`mapping requires an association between the particular host devices and storage.
`
`Ex. 2032 at 3; Ex. 2033 ¶ 29.
`
`However phrased, the claimed map/mapping requires that the map
`
`specifically identify the host (through some representation of that host) and its
`
`associated storage (through some representation of that storage) in order to allocate
`
`storage to particular hosts.
`
`The “Access Controls” Limitations
`
`2.
`Each of the independent claims at issue also recites a “control access,” (14,
`
`21) or “implement access controls” (34) limitation. The patent’s access controls
`
`limit a host computer’s access to a specific subset of storage devices or sections of
`
`a single storage device according to a map.1 The storage router implements access
`
`controls so that storage can only be accessed by the host(s) associated with that
`
`storage in the map. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:35-38, 4:42-44. The ’147 Patent can
`
`provide centralized access controls by controlling what virtual local storage each
`
`host sees. Id., 4:60-66; see Levy ¶ 58.
`
`
`1 There is no dispute that the access controls of the ’147 Patent are implemented
`
`according to the map. Ex. 2032 at 17.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`The “Control Access . . . using NLLBP” Limitations
`
`3.
`The foregoing “access control” limitations of each independent claim at
`
`issue requires access control “using NLLBP.”. The parties agree that any
`
`construction of this claim limitation requires that access from hosts to storage be
`
`allowed without involving the overhead of high level protocols and file systems.
`
`Ex. 1010 ¶ 19; Levy ¶¶ 59-60.
`
`The storage access allowed by prior art network servers required the host
`
`computers to send high level file system protocols that the network server had to
`
`translate into NLLBPs. Ex. 1001, 1:58-61, 3:29-34; see also Levy ¶¶ 42-44. In
`
`contrast, host computers send NLLBP requests to the claimed storage router,
`
`without the translation and overhead of high level protocols and file systems. Ex.
`
`1001, 5:13-17. Because the virtual local storage appears as local storage (4:60-66),
`
`a workstation accesses it using NLLBP. Ex. 1001, 4:35-38. Thus, the appropriate
`
`construction of the “control access,” “allow access” and “implement access
`
`controls” “using native low level block protocol” would be “permitting access
`
`using the NLLBP of the virtual local storage without involving a translation from
`
`high level protocols to native low level block protocols.” Petitioners agree. Pet. at
`
`11 (proposing meaning of NLLBP); Ex. 2065 at 2. Every proposed construction of
`
`NLLBP requires that allowing access using such “NLLBP” be done without the
`
`involvement or overhead of high level protocols and file systems.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONERS’ COMBINATION OF BERGSTEN AND HIRAI
`DOES NOT ESTABLISH UNPATENTABILITY OF THE CLAIMS
`
`The Board instituted review on the alleged grounds that Claims 14-39 were
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`
`Bergsten and Hirai. Petitioners have the burden “of proving a proposition of
`
`unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`Petitioners fail to show where each and every claim limitation can be found in the
`
`cited references.
`
`The proposed combination of Bergsten and Hirai fails to teach the claimed
`
`inventions of the ‘147 Patent because the combination cannot allow hosts access to
`
`storage using NLLBP as required by the claimed invention. Bergsten teaches an
`
`open access system where all hosts have access to all storage. Petitioners argue that
`
`Bergsten’s lack of “access controls” is remedied by adding the “access rights” of
`
`Hirai to Bergsten. The combination fails to disclose the claimed inventions also
`
`because the access rights mechanism of Hirai is based on the use of high level file
`
`system protocols, not NLLBPs. The access commands from host computers in the
`
`combination must be converted to NLLBP commands in order to allow access to
`
`storage. As “allowing access . . . using NLLBPs” requires allowing access without
`
`involving the overhead of high level protocols or file systems, the combination of
`
`Bergsten and Hirai does not teach the claimed invention.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`The combination also fails to teach the “map” and “access control”
`
`limitations. Bergsten’s mapping does not include any information that identifies
`
`the host computer. The Bergsten “map” is used to show the relationship between
`
`interconnected physical storage devices and virtual storage devices without
`
`reference to hosts. And,
`
`the combined system strips away host identity information before processing
`
`at the map, such that the system cannot limit a host’s access in accordance with the
`
`map.
`
`A. Claim 14 of the ‘147 Patent is Different than the Prior Art
`An appropriate obviousness inquiry must address the claims as a whole, not
`
`disembodied concepts taken in isolation. See Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.,
`
`550 F.3d 1075, 1086 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“The determination of obviousness is made
`
`with respect to the subject matter as a whole, not separate pieces of the claim.”).
`
`As shown below, none of the references in combination disclose the claimed
`
`invention as a whole, in particular the claimed requirements that the supervisor unit
`
`is operable “[1] to control access [i.e., access controls] . . . [2] using native low
`
`level, block protocols [3] according to a map between the device and the remote
`
`storage device.” Ex. 1001, 11:17-22; Levy ¶ 104.
`
`1.
`
`The Combination of Bergsten and Hirai Does Not “Allow
`Access . . . Using NLLBP”
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioners argue that Bergsten discloses a storage router having all the
`
`limitations of claim 1 except for access controls. Paper 12 (“Inst. Dec.”) at 9.
`
`Bergsten does not have any form of access controls; rather, it is an open access
`
`system for sharing and replicating data across storage controllers, where all hosts
`
`can access any of the storage devices. Ex. 1007, 3:20-35; 4:39-41; Levy ¶ 66, 105.
`
`Petitioners therefore insert Hirai’s access rights to supply the missing “access
`
`controls.” Pet. at 45.
`
`But Hirai does not teach the claimed access controls. The parties agree that
`
`any construction of “allow access . . . using NLLBP” requires access from hosts to
`
`storage be allowed using an NLLBP without involving the translation of high level
`
`file system protocols. Pet. at 11; Levy ¶ 59. Hirai utilizes only high level file
`
`system access permissions.
`
`The combination of Hirai’s file system access controls with the open access
`
`system of Bergsten results in “allowing access. . .” in the same manner as the prior
`
`art “network servers.” The asserted combination is emblematic of the very problem
`
`identified by the inventors in the patent. Thus, the combination does not “allow
`
`access . . . using NLLBP” as claimed. Levy ¶ 103-114; Ex. 1007 at Abstract; 1:41-
`
`43, 3:1-4, 3:20-35, 4:7-10, 4:39-41, 15:36-39.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`(a) Hirai’s Access Rights Utilize High Level File System Protocols
` and Therefore Cannot “Control Access” or “Implement Access
` Controls” “… Using NLLBP”
`Bergsten teaches an open access system without “access controls” where
`
`any host computer system can access any data stored in any of the storage arrays,
`
`(i.e., open access system). Levy ¶ 66; Ex. 1007 at Abstract; 1:41-43, 3:1-4, 3:20-
`
`35, 4:7-10, 4:39-41, 15:36-39. Petitioners rely on Hirai for the claimed access
`
`controls, (Pet. at 45) but impermissibly ignore the complete teaching of Hirai.
`
`Hirai teaches high level file s