throbber
1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 158
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION, §
`NETAPP INC. AND HUAWEI §
`TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. §
` §
` Petitioners, § IPR2014-01197
` § IPR2014-01207
`VS. § IPR2014-01209
` §
` §
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, §
`INC. §
` §
` Patent Owner. §
`
` ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
` JOHN LEVY, PH.D.
` JULY 16, 2015
` CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
` VOLUME 2 OF 2
`
` ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JOHN LEVY, PH.D.,
`produced as a witness at the instance of the Petitioners
`and duly sworn, was taken in the above styled and numbered
`cause on Thursday, July 16th, 2015 from 9:01 a.m. to
`2:04 p.m., before Tamara Chapman, CSR, RPR, CCR (LA) in
`and for the State of Texas, reported by computerized
`stenotype machine, at the offices of Sprinkle IP, 1301
`West 25th Street, Suite 408, Austin, Texas.
`
`Job No: 95252
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 1
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 159
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`FOR THE PETITIONERS ORACLE CORPORATION, NETAPP INC. AND
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.:
` Mr. Greg Gardella, Esq.
` OBLON MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT
` 1940 Duke Street
` Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`
` -
` Mr. Aaron Huang, Esq.
` WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES
` 201 Redwood Shores Parkway
` Redwood Shores, California 94065
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.:
` Mr. James Hall, Esq.
` BLANK ROME
` 700 Louisiana
` Houston, Texas 77002
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` Ms. Rachel MacGuire - Oracle Senior Corporate Counsel
` Mr. Brent Kirby - The Videographer
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`11
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 2
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
` * * *
` EXAMINATION INDEX
`
`Page 160
`
` Page
` BY MR. GARDELLA............................ 161
`
` BY MR. HALL................................ 186
`
` BY MR. GARDELLA............................ 215
`
` * * *
`
` INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
` Page
` Exhibit 1217............................... 186
` Telephone conference with The Panel
` 7/16/15
`
` * * *
`
` INDEX OF PREVIOUS EXHIBITS
`
` Exhibit 1018............................... 208
` Exhibit 1213............................... 188
` Exhibit 2053............................... 186
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2 3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 3
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 161
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is Tape No. 1.
`We're recording and on the record. 9:01 a.m.
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. GARDELLA:
` Q. Welcome back, Dr. Levy.
` A. Thank you.
` Q. Did you speak with counsel about the substance of
`your testimony since we closed yesterday?
` A. No, I did not.
` Q. I'd like to next ask some questions about the
`Hirai reference. Do you have that in front of you?
` A. I will in a moment.
` Okay.
` Q. So -- and my questions are going to relate to the
`create and delete commands and the applicability that they
`might have to certain activities.
` A. All right.
` Q. So in the context of partition control in the
`Hirai system, is it fair to say that an administrator
`station on the host side could use create and delete
`commands?
` MR. HALL: Objection; foundation, form.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) Do you understand the
`question?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 4
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 162
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
` A. Well, let's see.
` Q. Well, do you understand the question, though,
`before we proceed?
` A. I am going to address that.
` Q. Okay. Sorry.
` A. Hirai does not actually talk about create and
`delete commands. He -- he only dis- -- says a personal
`computer can read, write, create and execute with
`partition 1 and so on. If that action of a personal
`computer, read, write, create and execute, is what you're
`referring to, then we can proceed from there.
` Q. Just to make sure we're on the same page, what
`paragraph of Hirai are you reading from?
` A. That's in Paragraph 13.
` Q. So how do you understand that sentence in -- in
`terms of what read, write, create and execute are
`referring to?
` MR. HALL: Objection; form.
` A. Well, since the access rights spoken about in
`Paragraph 12, which include, read, write, create, delete
`and execute, are well-known file system access rights, I
`understand the statement that a personal computer 2 can
`read, write, create and execute with Partition 1 to mean
`that a program running in personal computer -- I said 2 --
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 5
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 163
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`can perform those types of file access operations in that
`partition.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) In Hirai, one of the personal
`computers can serve as an administrative station or
`terminal. Correct?
` MR. HALL: Objection; foundation.
` A. Perhaps you can point me to a section of Hirai
`that talks about that.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) I don't believe there is any
`express discussion of it. My question is, rather, you
`know, given the overall system design and architecture
`described in Hirai, is it reasonable to infer that
`administrative functions could be carried out from one of
`the personal computers?
` MR. HALL: Objection; form.
` A. Well, not necessarily. I mean, there's really no
`discussion of how the partitions are defined or managed.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) And -- and I guess that's my
`point, Dr. Levy. Isn't it fair to say that in the context
`of a system such as that described in Hirai, an
`administrator performing administrative duties at one of
`the personal computers could utilize, create and delete
`commands to create and delete partitions on the storage
`devices?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 6
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 164
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
` MR. HALL: Objection; form, foundation.
` A. Well, there are -- you know, there are no create
`and delete commands discussed in Hirai. But in spite of
`that, I think also that -- if reading Hirai we come to the
`point of view that the magnetic disk sharing device is, in
`fact, a -- is something related to a file server, one can
`imagine that that server itself could have an
`administrator that does this kind of administration
`without necessarily using the personal computers attached.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) Okay. So do I understand you
`to be saying that the administrative functions could be
`carried out either at sharing device 3 or at one of the
`personal computers, 1 or 2?
` MR. HALL: Objection; foundation.
` A. Well, Hirai makes no suggestion of either one of
`those. I was just saying that it could easily be done by
`a file server itself with a user interface or somewhere
`else so that -- since Hi doesn't -- Hirai doesn't address
`that, there's really no reason to understand it as being
`one or the other.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) Okay. So, again, my question,
`which I -- I don't think you're answering quite yet, is
`whether the administrative functions that we're talking
`about could be performed at the personal computers. And
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 7
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 165
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`let me reformulate the question.
` Can you identify any reason why, in the context
`of Hirai, that such administrative functions could not be
`performed by an administrator through personal computers 1
`or 2?
` MR. HALL: Objection; form, foundation.
` A. Well, one potential reason would be that since
`the purpose of the partition control table and its
`functions is to prevent illegal access from the personal
`computers, it may be necessary to set up that partition
`control table before any personal computer attached could
`have any kind of access. That would weigh strongly in
`favor of having an administrator directly connected to the
`sharing device.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) Depending on the policies that
`the administrator or a user of the Hirai system wanted to
`enforce, would you agree that it would be possible to have
`an administrator utilize create and delete commands at a
`PC station to create and delete partitions on the storage
`devices?
` MR. HALL: Objection; form, foundation.
` A. Well, there are no create and delete commands.
`And, furthermore, we're way beyond anything that Hirai
`discusses in terms of an administrator, so --
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 8
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 166
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) Right.
` A. -- it's pure speculation.
` Q. Yeah. I understand that it's not expressly
`described in Hirai, which is one of the reasons why I'm
`asking you the question. We're, you know, trying to
`establish through this discussion what types of things
`would be reasonable or not reasonable in the context of
`the Hirai system. And I'd like you to assume, for
`purposes of my next question, that in the Hirai system
`there are control in- -- excuse me -- there are create and
`delete commands which correspond to the create and delete
`permissions. Would you please assume that?
` MR. HALL: Objection; foundation.
` A. I'm willing to make that literal assumption, but
`you'll have to tell me what they do.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) Well, my question kind of gets
`to that premise. If a system such as that described in
`Hirai has create and delan- -- delete commands which
`correspond to the create and delete permissions, an
`administrator at one of the PCs could use such commands to
`create or delete partitions on the storage devices. Is
`that fair?
` MR. HALL: Objection; form, foundation.
` A. Well, I don't know of a create partition command
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 9
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 167
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`or a delete partition command that would be -- that exists
`or would be relevant.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) I'd ask you to assume that
`those commands exist. If those commands exist, could such
`commands be used by an administrator at one of the PCs in
`a system such as that described --
` MR. HALL: Objection --
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) -- at Hirai --
` MR. HALL: Objection; form.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) -- or in Hirai? Excuse me.
` MR. HALL: Objection; form, foundation.
` A. So you're asking me to assume that there is a
`create partition command?
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) Yes.
` A. And that there exists a delete partition command?
` Q. (Nods.)
` A. And perhaps you can enlighten me as to what
`they're supposed to do.
` Q. You can assume they do what their names imply,
`that they create and delete partitions. Such commands
`could be used by an administrator at one of the PCs in the
`context of a system such as that described in Hirai.
`Correct?
` MR. HALL: Objection; form, foundation.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 10
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 168
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
` A. Well, you'd -- before such a command would be
`relevant, you'd have to have also assumed that an
`administrator at the PC, first of all, had access to the
`disk-sharing system, that it also had done the aggregation
`of the disks required before the partitioning is going to
`be done, which is what Hirai describes, and possibly other
`items, such as setting up file systems. There's a whole
`bunch of background required before "partition" could be
`defined.
` Q. Those assumptions all sound reasonable to me, so
`please make those assumptions.
` A. Okay. Now what?
` Q. So then what's the answer to the question?
` Would you like it back?
` A. I'd like -- yes.
` Q. Making those assumptions, create and delete
`commands could be used by an administrator at one of the
`PCs in the context of a system such as that described in
`Hirai. Is that correct?
` MR. HALL: Objection; form, foundation.
` A. So let me just enumerate the assumptions I'm
`making here first.
` We're assuming that this magnetic disk sharing
`device is running and that PCs have access to it before
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 11
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 169
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`the access rights to partitions are set up. Then an
`administrator is operating on one of these PCs and has
`access to it and the magnetic disk sharing device, that
`the configuration of the physical disk attached to the
`sharing device is visible, and that the administrator has
`arranged the aggregation of those disks into a larger,
`logical or virtual volume.
` And now these putative create partition commands
`and delete partition commands exist and would do something
`analogous to what a volume manager would do in a normal
`file server. Under those assumptions, it's possible that
`this could be managed from a PC attached to that server.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) Let's move on now to the
`execute command. In the context of Hirai, how would the
`sharing device 3 enforce an execute command?
` A. Well, you're going to have to tell me what an
`execute command does.
` Q. Well, let's start there. What is your
`understanding of what the execute access right described
`in Paragraph 12 of Hirai permits?
` A. The execute access right in a file system does --
`says that the user who was accessing that file is allowed
`to have it read into the system of the user and then
`executed by the processor of that system.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 12
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 170
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
` Q. Okay. And that, again, is -- well, strike that.
` In the Hirai system, the sharing device 3 has no
`ability to monitor or control the execution activities of
`PCs 1 or 2, does it?
` A. Well, I think if you look at the handling of the
`execute access right in the context of the NFS system, for
`example, that access right would be -- could be checked by
`both the file server and the system that -- remote system
`that has requested the access to that file.
` So while the execution of the file would only
`take place in the local system that requested the file,
`the access right may well be checked by the file server.
` Q. Of what utility would that be, given that PCs 1
`or 2 are going to be executing the file locally?
` A. It would prevent -- it would remove the need to
`transmit a file for which the user doesn't have permission
`to execute.
` Q. In this context, I mean, files are simply blocks
`of data. Is that fair?
` MR. HALL: Objection; form.
` A. At base, they are simply blocks of data. But in
`the case of a file which is proposed to be executed, it
`has to be a code file, a file that can be executed.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) After a file under your
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 13
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 171
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`interpretation of Hirai is sent to PC 1 or 2, how would
`the sharing device 3 prevent PC 1 or 2 from executing that
`file in the event they did not have execute permission?
` A. Well, if -- if the Hirai system functions the way
`the NFS file server works, both the local system that's
`requesting the file and the file server, which in this
`case would be the magnetic disk share picking (phonetic)
`device, would check the user's access rights to determine
`whether execute permission is allowed.
` So it would have been checked before it sent.
`But if for some reason you were trying to fool it -- you
`could send in a read request without saying that it's
`going to be executed, I suppose, but that wouldn't be the
`way -- that wouldn't be kosher in this context of NFS.
`The operating systems were always honest with each other.
` Q. You would agree, then, that in the event PC 1 or
`2 submitted a read request for data which was executable
`and had read permissions at the sharing device 3 and
`thereafter received the requested data, that in that
`circumstance the sharing device 3 would have no ability to
`prevent PC 1 or 2 from executing the data irrespective of
`whether PC 1 or 2 had execute permission?
` MR. HALL: Objection; form, foundation.
` A. It is theoretically possible for a -- an
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 14
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 172
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`operating system to overcome the access permissions of an
`executable file by having it masquerade as a readable file
`but not an execute file. So what you suggest is -- is
`conceivable.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) And would you agree that
`there's nothing in Hirai which would prevent that
`possibility?
` MR. HALL: Objection; form, foundation.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) Would you agree that there's
`nothing expressly taught in Hirai which would preclude
`that?
` A. Well, there's -- there's precious little
`expressly taught in Hirai about what the PCs are doing, so
`that is not expressly taught.
` Q. So you agree with me that there is nothing
`expressly taught in Hirai which would preclude what I
`proposed?
` MR. HALL: Objection; form.
` A. There's nothing expressly taught in Hirai that
`would preclude a user on a PC execu- -- executing a read
`request on a file that would be sent back and subsequently
`executed.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) Even though the PC did not
`have execute permissions for that data?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 15
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 173
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
` A. Even though the user did not have -- have execute
`permission on that file.
` Q. Let's turn to Bergsten next. Do you have
`Bergsten --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- before you?
` Let's go to Claim 38 first. Could you read
`Claim 38 into the record, please.
` A. Okay. So Claim 38 is dependent claim --
`depending from Claim 37, which depends from Claim 36,
`which depends from Claim 35, just to note that.
` Q. And you can feel free to review those to the
`extent you think is necessary. I don't know that it will
`be necessary in the context of my question.
` A. Okay.
` Q. But could we start by reading Claim 38 into the
`record?
` A. Yes. Claim 38, "A system according to Claim 37,
`each of the storage devices further comprising translation
`means for representing the storage arrays as at least one
`virtual device to the host processing systems."
` Q. That language contemplates and suggests that
`there may be more than one virtual device. Is that
`correct?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 16
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 174
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
` MR. HALL: Objection; calls for a legal
`conclusion.
` A. It -- I -- I think that it leaves open that
`possibility.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) Let's turn next to Column 8,
`Line 26.
` A. If I could just elaborate on the last answer.
` Q. Absolutely.
` A. It appears to me that the -- while the Claim 38
`leaves open the possibility that there's more than one
`virtual device, it doesn't seem to suggest that there's a
`different represe- -- representation to any individual
`host, that whatever representation there is is to the host
`processing systems.
` Q. Are you ready to turn to Column 8 now?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you see the sentence in Line 26 of Column 8
`which begins with the phrase "Figure 6 illustrates"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Could you please read that and the subsequent two
`sentences into the record, please.
` A. "Figure 6 illustrates a routine for performing
`these standard checks."
` Do you want the next one as well?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 17
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 175
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
` Q. The next two, please.
` A. Sorry.
` "It is first determined, in step 601, whether the
`storage device identified by the ho-" -- "by the host
`exists. As noted above, this device will be a virtual
`device."
` Q. Given that this passage describes, in the first
`instance, checking determine -- strike that.
` Given that this passage describes as the first
`step of the process checking to determine whether the
`identified storage device exists and that that storage
`device is a virtual device, doesn't this also suggest and
`contemplate the existence of more than one virtual device?
` MR. HALL: Objection; foundation.
` A. It does suggest that the storage device
`identified by a host -- it's conceivable that there may be
`more than one storage device that could be identified by a
`host and that that such would be a virtual device.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) Would you agree that if a
`system such as that taught in Bergsten was hardwired or
`configured with a single virtual device, there would be no
`advantage or utility in performing this check as the first
`step of the process described in Figure 6?
` MR. HALL: Objection; form, foundation.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 18
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 176
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
` A. Well, since this section here is discussing
`standard checks that are done by a storage controller, I
`think that it's really just pointing out that any
`controller would have to verify that a access request is
`to something that exists.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) And that check would be
`superfluous in the context of a system which was hardwired
`to have only one virtual device. Would you agree with
`that?
` A. No.
` MR. HALL: Objection; form, foundation.
` A. No, since the form in which requests come in have
`to designate some kind of device. Even if there's only
`one, one would want to check to make sure that was what
`was being addressed.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) So is it fair to say, then,
`that this passage of Bergsten permits the use of multiple
`virtual devices?
` MR. HALL: Objection; foundation.
` A. I would say that this passage of Bergsten does
`not eliminate that possibility, although it doesn't
`particularly suggest it.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) Can you point to anything in
`Bergsten, sitting here today, which precludes the use of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 19
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 177
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`multiple virtual devices?
` MR. HALL: Objection; scope, form,
`foundation.
` A. (Reviewing document.)
` Well, I think since Bergsten describes virtual
`address as being what comes in and gives great detail
`about how to map a virtual address into logical and then
`physical device addressing, a person of ordinary skill in
`the art reading this would understand that the virtual
`addresses are in a unitary or singular -- single address
`space.
` I guess I would expect that if Bergsten was
`anticipating multiple virtual addresses, he would have
`suggested that that virtual address space could be one of
`several, but it doesn't seem to be described that way.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) I understand that you're
`inferring from the overall description of Bergsten that
`Bergsten intended, as the preferred implementation, that
`there be a single virtual device. However, that is not my
`question.
` My question is whether there is any teaching in
`Bergsten which would preclude the implementation of the
`Bergsten system with multiple virtual devices.
` MR. HALL: Objection; scope, form,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 20
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 178
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`foundation.
` A. Well, while -- I don't think I could find
`language that precludes that possibility. But since
`Bergsten equates the host address with a virtual address
`and then shows how to map that virtual address, it leads
`to -- leads me, anyway, to the conclusion that there's
`only one virtual address, and it's the address provided by
`the host.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) But there could be multiple
`host addresses and multiple virtual devices. Correct?
` MR. HALL: Objection -- objection;
`foundation.
` A. Well, I hadn't considered that before, but I
`don't see anything at the moment that would necessarily
`preclude it.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) So I'd like to shift gears a
`bit and discuss the combination of Bergsten and Hirai.
` Now, I'm going to ask you to accept, for purposes
`of this next question, that the combination does provide
`multiple LUNs of virtual devices. I'd like to understand
`that under that assumption -- or, rather, I'd like to
`understand whether under that assumption there are
`additional issues with the combination.
` So the question is this. If you assume that the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 21
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 179
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`combination of Bergsten and Hirai provides multiple LUNs
`or virtual devices, then is it your view the only
`remaining problem with the combination is that Bergsten
`doesn't identify the host?
` MR. HALL: Objection; form, foundation.
` A. No.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) Please identify any additional
`problems that would exist with the combination.
` MR. HALL: Objection; form, foundation.
` A. Well, first of all, of course, you're asking me
`to assume there's something about LUNs which is not
`disclosed here. But let me leave that for the moment and
`try to answer your question.
` When -- if one were to combine Hirai as modified,
`according to your assumption --
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) Uh-huh.
` A. -- with Bergsten in the way in which it was
`suggested by Dr. Chase, which would be at the logical
`level, you would still have the problem that a host could
`not detect what access controls were being applied to its
`storage at the logical level because the logical level is
`not visible to the host.
` Q. And why is it essential that the host have
`visibility into the access controls which are being
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 22
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 180
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`applied to it?
` MR. HALL: Objection; form.
` A. Because, as I've pointed out in -- somewhere --
`let's see here.
` (Reviewing document.)
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) May I ask which paragraph of
`your declaration you're making reference to?
` A. I will -- will tell you when I find them, yes.
` Well, I -- in -- in Paragraphs 132 through 135 --
`actually, 136 -- explain a complication by the combination
`where Hirai's file access permissions, that those same
`problems would occur. And -- and the reason for those
`problems is that the host can't determine which portions
`of storage are -- access is permitted or denied because
`it's being applied to the logical disk level. And so
`those same problems would come up under the assumptions
`you've given me.
` Q. Well, would you agree that a combined system
`which was subject to the shortcomings set forth in
`Paragraphs 132 to 136 of your declaration would still be
`useful in certain applications and for certain purposes?
` MR. HALL: Objection; form, foundation.
` A. No.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) So it's your view that a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Oracle Ex. 1219, pg. 23
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01207
`(CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`

`
`Page 181
` J. LEVY-7/16/15-CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`system in which the host did not have visibility into the
`access control permissions which were being applied to it
`would have no utility?
` MR. HALL: Objection; form.
` A. As I've explained in Paragraph 136 where even --
`even assuming you could have per-host access rights,
`there's no reasonable expectation of success of such a
`system being functional or useful.
` Q. (BY MR. GARDELLA) Okay. Please explain why that
`is.
` A. Well, it -- let's just say it's very awkward when
`you have a system which is accessing storage to have its
`commands fail for no reason that the host can determine.
` Q. Commands fail in other computing contexts without
`causing failure or inoperability of the system. Correct?
` MR. HALL: Objection; form, foundation.
` A. While there's a great deal of effort spent in
`systems dealing with failures which are unavoidable, this
`is an entirely avoidable type of failure that no -- I
`believe no reasonable person of skill in the art would

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket