OOracle et. al.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`Crossroads Systems
`Patent Owner
`IPR2014-01197, -01207, -01209
`
`
` CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 2352
` Oracle Corp et al v Crossroads Systems, Inc.
` IPR2014-01197, -01207, -01209
`
`1
`
`
`Petitioners
`v.
`Crossroads Systems
`Patent Owner
`IPR2014-01197, -01207, -01209
`
`
` CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 2352
` Oracle Corp et al v Crossroads Systems, Inc.
` IPR2014-01197, -01207, -01209
`
`1
`
`
`
`CRD-5500 RELATED GROUNDSCRD-5500 RELATED GROUNDS
`
`
`
`CRD-5500 RELATED GROUNDS
`(IPR 2014-01207)
`
`(IPR 2014-01207)(IPR 2014-01207)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Overview of CRD Presentation
`
`• Petitioners’ reliance on Host LUN Mapping in their combination fails –
`Host LUN Mapping does not map hosts, it maps host channels
`• Chase admits CRD cannot identify multiple hosts
`on one channel
`• Chase concedes CRD’s "access control granularity" is only per
`channel
`
`• Petitioners’ assertion that channel allocation of storage is per host
`mapping fails
`• The patent claims are directed to mapping hosts NOT channels
`
`• Petitioners’ allegations that the Tachyon interface passes host
`information to the CRD CPU fails
`• Chase contradicted their combination from the start
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reliance on Host LUN
`Mapping in their Combination Fails –
`Host LUN Mapping Does Not Map
`Hosts, it Maps Host Channels
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Combination Utilizes CRD-5500’s Host LUN Mapping
`
`Petitioners’ asserted combination alleges that the existing Host LUN
`Mapping will automatically be able to “cross-reference” a host
`identification.
`
`1207 Pet. at 18-19
`
`cited in 1207 POR at 38 5
`
`
`
`Petitioners Go Further to Allege that the Host LUN Mapping as
`it Existed Mapped Between Hosts and Storage
`
`1207 Pet. at 21
`
`cited in 1207 POR at 46
`
`6
`
`
`
`Contrary to Petitioners’ Assertion, Both Experts Agree that
`“Host LUN Mapping” Does Not Map to Hosts
`
`Dr. Levy testified that Host LUN Mapping Cannot Distinguish Between Specific Hosts.
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 226
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 218
`
`cited in 1207 POR at 43, 47-48
`
`7
`
`
`
`Host LUN Mapping Contains No Identification of any Host
`
`LUN
`
`Channel Number
`
`Redundancy Group Number
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 217-218
`
`cited in 1207 POR at 43
`
`8
`
`
`
`Contrary to Petitioners’ Assertion Both Experts Agree that “Host
`LUN Mapping” Does Not Map to Hosts
`
`Professor Chase agrees that Host LUN Mapping does not map to hosts
`
`Ex. 2055 (Chase Depo.) at 424:8-12
`
`Ex. 2055 (Chase Depo.) at 414:10-15
`
`cited in 1207 POR at 46, 47-48
`
`9
`
`
`
`“Host LUN Mapping” Cannot Allocate Storage to Particular
`Hosts on the Same Channel Because it Assigns Storage to
`Channels, not Hosts
`
`• “Host LUN Mapping” Assigns Storage to Channels, Not
`Hosts. Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 203
`
`• Any Host on a Channel Has Access to All Storage
`Assigned to the Channel via “Host LUN Mapping”
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 228
`
`• There is no way the “Host LUN Mapping” table can
`Allocate Storage to Specific Hosts on a Channel because
`it Neither Receives Nor Contains any Host Identity
`Information. Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶¶ 219, 229
`
`cited in 1207 POR at 41-44
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reliance on the Host LUN Mapping in their
`Combination Fails – the Host LUN Mapping Does Not Map
`Hosts, it Maps Host Channels
`
`• Chase admits CRD cannot identify multiple hosts
`on one channel
`
`• Chase concedes CRD’s “access control
`granularity” is only per channel
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Assertion that
`Channel Allocation of Storage is
`Per Host Mapping Fails
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioners Rely on Channel ID As a Substitute for Host ID in a
`Single Host Per Channel Configuration
`
`Petitioners’ Reply Relies on a Single Host Per Channel Configuration
`(“[E]ach channel is associated with only one host and thus the channel ID
`uniquely identifies each host device.”) Reply at 3.
`
`1207 Pet. at 18
`
`13
`
`
`
`Using Channel Numbers as Substitutes for Host Identification
`Never Enables Allocation of Storage to Particular Hosts
`
`• Even if only one host is attached to a channel, the
`channel number cannot serve as a proxy or
`substitute for the specific host identity.
`• Patents are about control at the host/device level
`not at the channel/controller level.
`
`cited in 1207 POR at 41-45, 48-49 14
`
`
`
`The Invention is Directed Toward Mapping Storage Space to
`Each Host
`
`The invention requires the capability to map different storage to
`different hosts on the same transport medium (i.e., a common
`communications link):
`
`. . .
`
`1209 POR at 3-7 (citing Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶¶ 51-53)
`1207 POR at 2, 41
`
`15
`
`
`
`The Claimed Map Includes a Device
`Not a Channel (i.e. First Controller)
`
`Claim 14, ‘147 Patent
`
`1207 Pet. at 18-20; 1207 POR at 37, 41-47
`
`16
`
`
`
`The Claimed Map Includes a Device
`Not a Channel (i.e. First Controller)
`
`Claim 14, ‘147 Patent
`
`1207 Pet. at 18-20; 1207 POR at 37, 41-47;
`1209 POR at 8-9 (citing Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶¶ 58-59)
`
`17
`
`
`
`The Claimed Map Includes a Device
`Not a Channel (i.e. First Controller)
`
`Claim 14, ‘147 Patent
`
`1207 Pet. at 18-20; 1207 POR at 37, 41-47;
`1209 POR at 8-9 (citing Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶¶ 58-59) 18
`
`
`
`The Claimed Map Includes a Device
`Not a Channel (i.e. First Controller)
`
`a first controller
`
`a first transport medium device connected to the first transport medium
`
`1207 Pet. at 18-20, 1207 POR at 37, 41-47
`1209 POR at 8-9 (citing Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶¶ 58-59) 19
`
`
`
`Petitioners Attempt to Overcome the Fact
`that Host LUN Mapping Does Not Map to
`Hosts by Mischaracterizing the Testimony
`of Dr. Levy Related to Fibre Channel ID
`
`20
`
`
`
`Petitioners Attempt to Support Their Channel Argument
`Through Dr. Levy
`
`Petitioners assert that Dr. Levy “concedes that a host channel ID (a Fibre
`Channel ID in the CRD combined system) is sufficient to identify the host
`device . . . where there is only a single host on each host or fibre channel.”
`Reply at 3 (citing Ex. 1218 (Levy Depo.) at 56:19-57:24)
`
`• Dr. Levy actually says: “Well, on the host side of the map, all that's required in
`the map is an identifier sufficient to distinguish between multiple hosts on the
`first transport medium. So a fibre channel ID of some kind would be one
`example of something that could distinguish between such hosts.” Ex. 1218
`(Levy Depo.) at 57:19-24
`
`• Further, it is clear in context that Dr. Levy was indicating that a fibre channel ID
`(e.g., AL_PA or World Wide Name) similar to a SCSI ID would be sufficient to
`distinguish between host devices on a first transport medium.
`
`cited in 1207 PO Mot. Exclude at 2 (FRE 106)
`
`21
`
`
`
`Petitioners Attempt to Support Their Channel Argument
`Through Dr. Levy
`
`Ex. 1218 (Levy Depo.) at 57:3-12, 19-24
`
`cited in 1207 PO Mot. Exclude at 2 (FRE 106)
`
`22
`
`
`
`Petitioners Attempt to Support Their Channel Argument
`Through Dr. Levy
`
`Moreover, Petitioners’ only citation for the meaning of “fiber channel ID”
`confirms Dr. Levy’s use in his testimony:
`
`1207 Pet. Opp. to Mot. to Exclude at 2
`
`23
`
`
`
`Fibre Channel ID is not the Same Thing as Channel Number
`
`• Petitioners concede that a Fibre Channel identifier is a unique host
`identifier, but assert for the first time in their Reply that it is the same
`as a “host channel ID” (Pet. Reply at 3)
`• But a “Fibre Channel ID” cannot be the same thing as Channel
`Number, because Channel Numbers cannot distinguish between
`multiple hosts on the same channel:
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 220
`
`Ex. 2055 (Chase Depo.) at 424:8-12
`cited in 1207 POR at 46, 54
`
`24
`
`
`
`The Combination uses Channel Numbers
`
`The combination’s “Host LUN Mapping” only uses the Channel Number
`
`……
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 203
`
`So if Petitioners’ “Fibre Channel ID” is not a Channel Number, it is not
`used in the combination
`
`cited in 1207 POR at 42
`
`25
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Assertion that Channel Allocation of Storage is Per
`Host Mapping Fails
`
`• The patent claims mapping hosts NOT channels.
`
`• Dr. Levy’s testimony supports the fact that the CRD
`allocates storage per channel and does not map
`hosts to storage space.
`
`26
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Combination Requiring
`the Tachyon Chip to
`Pass Host ID Fails
`
`27
`
`
`
`There Has Never Been Any Support for Petitioners’ Claim that
`the Tachyon Passes Host Device Identity
`for “Host LUN Mapping” Cross-Referencing
`Petition/Reply
`Chase Declaration
`
`1207 Reply at 6 (citing Pet. at 18-19) (emphasis in Reply)
`
`Ex. 1010 (Chase Decl.) ¶ 42
`
`Ex. 1010 (Chase Decl.) ¶ 45
`
`cited in 1207 POR at 38
`
`28
`
`
`
`The Combination’s Tachyon Interface Card Does Not Pass
`Host Identity to the CRD-5500 CPU
`
`• FCP maps SCSI commands into Fibre Channel Information Units used
`to transport SCSI commands in the payload of a Fibre Channel frame.
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶¶ 30-31.
`
`• All host information is embedded in the Fibre Channel frame-the SCSI
`commands do not contain any host information.
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶¶ 31, 199, 201
`
`• Because the extracted SCSI command does not contain any host
`information, in the proposed combination, host information is never
`sent to the CRD-5500 CPU.
`
`cited in 1207 POR at 39-40 29
`
`
`
`SCSI Commands Do Not Contain Host Identifiers
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶201
`
`cited in 1207 POR at 39
`
`30
`
`
`
`The Combination’s Tachyon Interface Card Does Not Pass
`Host Identity to the CRD
`
`• Petitioners argue that because “the sending host would be
`identifiable” at the Tachyon chip, the combination does not rely
`on channel numbers. Reply at 7 (citing Ex. 1232 (Levy Depo.) at
`119:4-25)
`
`• But the Tachyon never passes the host identity information to the
`CRD-5500 CPU for use in mapping or access controls.
`
`1207 POR at 39-40 31
`
`
`
`Both Experts State that the Tachyon
`Only Sends SCSI Commands to the CRD CPU, Not Host ID
`
`Chase:
`
`Levy:
`
`Ex. 1010 (Chase Decl.) ¶ 42
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 201
`
`cited in 1207 POR at 38-39 32
`
`
`
`The CRD-5500 Cannot “Cross-Reference”
`“Host Device Information” it Never Receives
`
`The CRD-5500 controller cannot “cross-reference” or identify the particular
`host which sent the command because it never receives the host identity.
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 201
`
`cited in 1207 POR at 40 33
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Allegations that the Tachyon Interface Card Passes
`Host Information to the CRD CPU Fails
`
`• Chase contradicted their combination from the start
`
`• In fact, both experts agree that the Tachyon chip
`does not pass host information
`
`34
`
`
`
`Petitioners Have Failed to Prove Unpatentability on any
`CRD Related Ground
`
`• Petitioners’ reliance on Host LUN Mapping in their combination fails –
`Host LUN Mapping does not map hosts, it maps host channels
`• Chase admits CRD cannot identify multiple hosts
`on one channel
`• Chase concedes CRD’s "access control granularity" is only per
`channel
`
`• Petitioners’ assertion that channel allocation of storage is per host
`mapping fails
`• The patent claims are directed to mapping hosts NOT channels
`
`• Petitioners’ allegations that the Tachyon interface passes host
`information to the CRD CPU fails
`• Chase contradicted their combination from the start
`
`35
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motivations to
`Combine Have Nothing to Do with
`the Claimed Access Controls
`or Mapping
`
`36
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motivations to Combine
`
`• 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
`• Avail the host computing device of ubiquitous mass
`storage applications (e.g., RAID)
`
`cited in 1207 POR at 53-54 37
`
`
`
`The Motivations only Relate to Adding Fibre Channel
`Capability to the CRD-5500
`
`• Petitioners’ cited motivations relate only to enhancing the
`existing CRD-5500 capabilities with the capabilities of the
`Fibre Channel transport medium
`
`• Petitioners present no motivation to modify the CRD-5500’s
`internal capabilities to add the claimed access controls
`
`• Petitioners never explain how to modify the CRD-5500’s
`internal capabilities to add the claimed access controls
`
`• Petitioners rely on “Host LUN Mapping” which contains no
`concept of the host connected to a channel, regardless of
`whether that information may be available
`
`cited in 1207 POR at 53-54 38
`
`
`
`BERGSTEN-HIRAI
`(IPR2014-01197, -1207, -1209)
`
`39
`
`
`
`Overview of Bergsten-Hirai
`
`• The combination fails because Hirai is at the file system level, not the claimed block level
`• The evidence demonstrates that Petitioners’ combination ignores the fact that Hirai was
`at the file system level
`• Petitioners concede this in their Reply and try to get this Board to ignore the expert
`evidence and teachings of Hirai to conclude that Hirai uses block level permissions
`
`• Petitioners’ original combination could not map to hosts because it failed to pass Host ID to
`their alleged map
`• Both experts agree the emulation drivers of Bergsten strip host identity before the
`alleged mapping occurs
`• Petitioners actually conceded this point as they walked away from their original
`combination and assert a brand new combination in one sentence in their Reply
`
`• Petitioners’ combination fails because access controls will fail at the logical device level of
`Bergsten, where Petitioners place them
`• Petitioners conceded this argument by not even providing a response in
`their Reply
`
`40
`
`
`
`The Combination Fails Because Hirai
`is at the File System Level, Not the
`Claimed Block Level
`
`41
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Use of Hirai Fails
`
`• Petitioners assert that Bergsten would use Hirai’s
`access rights to supply the missing access controls
`(1197 Pet. at 47)
`• Petitioners did not even mention block level
`permissions associated with Hirai in their Petition
`• But, as the evidence shows, Hirai’s access rights
`only apply to high level file system access, not
`NLLBP
`
`42
`
`
`
`Petitioners Attempt to Turn Hirai
`into Something it is Not
`
`Recognizing their original error, Petitioners now assert that Hirai is
`at a block or partition level in their Reply:
`
`1197 Reply at 5 43
`
`
`
`Dr. Chase’s Citation to Hirai
`
`Ex. 1010 (Chase Decl.) ¶ 145
`
`Ex. 1008 at [0011]
`
`cited in 1207 POR at 9 44
`
`
`
`Despite Petitioners’ Protestations, Hirai Is Just a Traditional
`Network File Level Storage System
`
`• Hirai explicitly provides access controls by command
`where the permissible commands are: READ, WRITE,
`CREATE, DELETE, and EXECUTE.
`
`Ex. 1008 Figure 2, see also [0012]
`
`cited in 1197 POR at 19 45
`
`
`
`Dr. Chase Conceded that Execute is
`Only a File System Command
`
`Ex.2055 (Chase Depo.) at 318:3-6
`
`cited in 1197 POR at 20 46
`
`
`
`Dr. Chase Conceded that READ, WRITE, CREATE,DELETE, and
`EXECUTE also are FILE Level Commands
`
`Ex.2054 (Chase Depo.) at 42:15-21
`
`Ex.2055 (Chase Depo.) at 309:18-20
`
`Ex.2055 (Chase Depo.) at 309:18-20
`Ex.2055 (Chase Depo.) at 310:8-9
`cited in 1197 POR at 24
`
`47
`
`
`
`Dr. Levy Also Agrees that READ, WRITE, CREATE, DELETE, and
`EXECUTE are File Level Permissions
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 89
`
`cited in 1197 POR at 16, 18, 21, 26
`
`48
`
`
`
`Petitioners in their Reply Attempt to Turn CREATE and DELETE
`into Partition Level Permissions
`
`Petitioners assert that “an administrator could
`use the ‘create’ and ‘delete’ commands to control
`the formation and removal of partitions.” 1197
`Reply at 5.
`
`49
`
`
`
`But, Dr. Chase Testified that CREATE Would Not be Applied as a
`Block Level Permission in Hirai
`
`Ex. 2055 (Chase Depo.) at 326:14-22 (objection omitted)
`
`Ex. 2055 (Chase Depo.) at 327:10-13
`cited in 1197 POR at 25 50
`
`
`
`Intentionally
`Left Blank
`
`51
`
`
`
`Petitioners Run From the Evidence in their Reply
`
`The Evidence:
`• All five of the access rights in Hirai correspond to the access rights in NFS
`
`• Dr. Levy says all five access rights cited by Hirai are at least file level
`commands
`
`• Dr. Chase conceded that all five commands cited by Hirai are at least file
`level commands
`Petitioners Ignore that Evidence:
`• Petitioners, however, insist that the access rights are block level, claiming
`that Hirai doesn’t understand his own invention: “Moreover, “execute”
`would be nonsensical…” (1197 Reply at 5)
`
`• Not supported by Chase or any evidence
`
`• An attorney saying the other side’s position is “nonsensical” is not evidence.
`
`52
`
`
`
`Patent Owner and Both Experts Agree That All Five Commands
`Are High Level File System
`
`Command
`READ
`WRITE
`CREATE
`DELETE
`EXECUTE
`
`Patent
`Owner/Levy
`NLLBP/HLFS
`NLLBP/HLFS
`HLFS
`HLFS
`HLFS
`
`Chase
`NLLBP/HLFS
`NLLBP/HLFS
`HLFS
`HLFS
`HLFS
`
`Petitioners
`NLLBP/HLFS
`NLLBP/HLFS
`Partition
`Partition
`Ignore
`
`53
`
`
`
`Patent Owner and Both Experts Agree That All Five Commands
`Are High Level File System
`
`Command
`READ
`WRITE
`CREATE
`DELETE
`EXECUTE
`
`Patent
`Owner/Levy
`NLLBP/HLFS
`NLLBP/HLFS
`HLFS
`HLFS
`HLFS
`
`Chase
`NLLBP/HLFS
`NLLBP/HLFS
`HLFS
`HLFS
`HLFS
`
`Petitioners
`NLLBP/HLFS
`NLLBP/HLFS
`Partition
`Partition
`Ignore
`
`Chase testified that:
`•
`CREATE made no sense at the Partition Level in Hirai,
`and
`EXECUTE is a file system permission
`
`•
`
`54
`
`
`
`Hirai’s Access Requests are Converted from High Level File
`System Protocols to NLLBP, Just Like the Prior Art
`
`• Hirai’s Access Requests Are Converted to NLLBP
`
`Ex. 1008 (Hirai) at 4 ¶ 11
`
`Ex. 1008 at [0011]
`
`cited in 1197 POR at 22 55
`
`
`
`Hirai Operates at High Level File System Level
`
`• To find Hirai operates at high level file system level, the
`Board can accept the testimony of both experts and the
`full teachings of Hirai
`• To find that Hirai provides access rights at the NLLBP
`level, the Board must:
`
`Ignore the testimony of Levy saying all commands would be
`understood to be file level commands
`
`Ignore the testimony of Chase stating that EXECUTE is a file
`level command
`
`Ignore Hirai’s own use of EXECUTE
`
`Ignore Chase stating that CREATE as a block level permission
`in Hirai makes no sense
`
`56
`
`
`
`Petitioners Concede Hirai is Not at Block Level
`in their Access Control Arguments
`
`Petition
`
`Reply
`
`1197 Pet. at 48
`
`1197 Reply at 7
`
`57
`
`
`
`The Combination Fails Because Hirai is at the File System Level,
`Not the Claimed Block Level
`
`• The evidence demonstrates that Petitioners’
`combination ignores the fact that Hirai was at a file
`system level
`
`• Petitioners concede this in their reply and try to get
`this Board to ignore the expert evidence and
`teachings of Hirai to conclude that Hirai uses block
`level permissions
`
`• Hirai is nothing more than the applicant-admitted
`prior art
`
`58
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Original Combination Could Not
`Map to Hosts Because it Failed to Pass
`Host ID to their Alleged Map
`
`59
`
`
`
`The Original Combination’s Access Controls are Implemented at
`the OS, Downstream of the Emulation Drivers
`
`Petition
`As explained by Bergsten, the
`emulation drivers 21 convert host
`commands ‘into a format recognized
`by the OS’ of the storage controller…
`1197 Pet. at 46
`
`The emulation drivers 21… provide the
`command to the processing system of
`the storage controller. The storage
`controller, in turn, maps the host
`address … matches the access controls
`specified for the host device for the
`particular logical storage location.
`
`1197 Pet. at 47
`
`cited in 1197 POR at 37-38
`
`60
`
`
`
`In Support of the Petition, Dr. Chase Testified that Access
`Controls were Implemented in the OS 20
`
`“In the combined system, the supervisor unit resides in the operating system
`of Bergsten . . . . the supervisor unit is operable to ‘map between devices’ . . . .
`the supervisor unit ‘implements access controls’ for storage space on the
`storage devices’ . . . .”
`Ex. 1010 (Chase Decl.) ¶ 156-158
`
`Supervisor Unit
`
`1197 POR at 38
`
`cited in 1197 Pet. at 51-52; 1197 POR at 38
`
`61
`
`
`
`The Original Combination’s Emulation Drivers Strip Host Identity
`Before Commands are Passed to OS 20
`
`Cited in 1197 POR at 37-38.
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 123
`
`cited in 1197 POR at 37-38 62
`
`
`
`Petitioners Agree that the Emulation Drivers Would Only Send a
`SCSI Command to the OS
`
`1197 Pet. at 47
`
`cited in 1197 POR at 37-39 63
`
`
`
`Dr. Chase Testified Further that the Emulation Drivers Would
`Strip the Host Information and
`Pass Only the SCSI Command to the OS
`
`“… that conversion would involve primarily
`deencapsulating the commands and transmitting
`the commands to the operating system without the
`framing and various other information that's
`necessary to transmit those commands reliably
`across the network.”
`
`Ex. 2055 (Chase Depo.) at 234:5-10
`
`cited in 1197 POR at 38
`Petitioners concede that Host
`ID is only in the framing:
`
`1197 Pet. at 12
`
`64
`
`
`
`In the Original Combination, No Host Identification Ever Makes
`it to Where the Alleged Access Controls are Implemented
`
`Petition
`
`The emulation drivers 21… provide
`the command to the processing
`system of the storage controller.
`The storage controller, in turn, maps
`the host address … matches the
`access controls specified for the
`host device for the particular logical
`storage location.
`1197 Pet. at 47
`In the combined system, the
`supervisor unit resides in the
`operating system of Bergsten . . . .
`the supervisor unit is operable to
`‘map between devices’ . . . . the
`supervisor unit ‘implements
`access controls’ for storage space
`on the storage devices’ . . . .
`Ex. 1010 (Chase Decl.) ¶ 156-58
`
`cited in 1197 Pet. at 51-52; 1197 POR at 38
`
`65
`
`
`
`In their Reply Petitioners Concede their Error While
`Impermissibly Attempting to Fix that Error
`
`Reply
`
`In the proposed
`combination,
`Bergsten’s block-
`level emulation
`drivers are
`modified to include
`access controls.
`
`1197 Reply at 1
`
`cited in 1197 POR at 38 66
`
`
`
`In their Reply Petitioners Impermissibly Attempt to Fix their
`Glaring Error
`
`Petition
`In the combined system, the supervisor
`unit resides in the operating system of
`Bergsten . . . . the supervisor unit is
`operable to ‘map between devices’ . . . .
`the supervisor unit ‘implements access
`controls’ for storage space on the storage
`devices’ . . . .
`Ex. 1010 (Chase Decl.) ¶ 156-58
`
`Reply
`In the proposed combination,
`Bergsten’s block-level emulation
`drivers are modified to include
`access controls.
`
`1197 Reply at 1
`
`cited in 1197 Pet. at 51-52; 1197 POR at 38
`
`67
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Original Combination Could Not Map to Hosts
`Because it Failed to Pass Host ID to their Alleged Map
`
`• Both experts agree that the emulation drivers of
`Bergsten strip host identity before the alleged
`mapping occurs
`
`• Petitioners conceded this point by walking away
`from their original combination and asserting a
`brand new combination in one sentence in their
`Reply
`
`68
`
`
`
`The Combination Fails Because
`Access Controls Will Fail at the Logical
`Device Level of Bergsten as the
`Petitioners Assert
`
`69
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Combination Cannot Workably Provide “Per Host”
`Access Rights At The Logical Device Level
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 131
`
`cited in 1197 POR at 41-42 70
`
`
`
`But as Dr. Levy Explained, Hosts Would Be Unaware of Access
`Controls Applied at the Logical Device Level
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 133
`
`cited in 1197 POR at 42
`
`71
`
`
`
`Dr. Levy Specifically Explains the Problem
`
`If hosts are denied access due to rights they cannot see at the logical address
`level, they have no logic to reformulate their requests to clear the access rights
`hurdle
`
`…
`
`…
`
`1197 POR at 43
`
`72
`
`
`
`As Patent Owner States in its Response, Access Controls at the
`Logical Device Level are not Workable
`
`1197 POR at 44
`
`73
`
`
`
`The Logical Device Layer of Bergsten
`
`1197 POR at 42
`
`74
`
`
`
`The Virtual Device Seen by the PCs
`
`1197 POR at 42
`
`75
`
`
`
`The Combination Fails Because Access Controls Will Fail at the
`Logical Device Level of Bergsten as the Petitioners Assert
`
`Petitioners conceded this argument by not even
`providing a response in their Reply
`
`76
`
`
`
`Petitioners Have Failed to Prove Unpatentability on any
`Asserted Grounds Based on Bergsten-Hirai
`
`• The combination fails because Hirai is at the file system level, not the claimed block level
`• The evidence demonstrates that Petitioners’ combination ignores the fact that Hirai was
`at the file system level
`• Petitioners concede this in their Reply and try to get this Board to ignore the expert
`evidence and teachings of Hirai to conclude that Hirai uses block level permissions
`
`• Petitioners’ original combination could not map to hosts because it failed to pass Host ID to
`their alleged map
`• Both experts agree the emulation drivers of Bergsten strip host identity before the
`alleged mapping occurs
`• Petitioners actually conceded this point as they walked away from their original
`combination and assert a brand new combination in one sentence in their Reply
`
`• Petitioners’ combination fails because access controls will fail at the logical device level of
`Bergsten, where Petitioners place them
`• Petitioners conceded this argument by not even providing a response in
`their Reply
`
`77
`
`
`
`NO MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
`
`78
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motivation Analysis is Defective
`
`Petitioners’ only reason to include access controls is to further Bergsten’s
`goal of “data protection.”
`
`1197 Reply at 7
`
`79
`
`
`
`There is No Basis to Read Any Motivation to Limit Access to
`Data into Bergsten’s Goal of Data Protection
`
`Bergsten is an open access system designed to “allow recovery from many possible
`failure modes” by ensuring that all copies of data can be accessed by any host:
`
`Ex. 1007 at 5:48-52
`
`Ex. 1007 Abstract
`
`cited in 1197 POR at 45 80
`
`
`
`There is No Basis to Read Any Motivation to Limit Access to
`Data into Bergsten’s Goal of Data Protection
`
`Bergsten is an open access system designed to “allow recovery from many possible
`failure modes” by ensuring that all copies of data can be accessed by any host:
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 119
`
`cited in 1197 POR at 45
`
`81
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motivations to Combine Are Circular and Infected
`with Hindsight Reasoning
`
`• Petitioners originally cited as a motivation “to provide additional
`levels of granularity to the access controls of the Bergsten
`system based on the mapping-based access controls of Hirai.”
`1197 Pet. at 48.
`• In Reply, Petitioners now cite the motivation was to “provide
`additional levels of granularity to block-level access controls of
`the Bergsten system using the mapping-based access controls of
`Hirai.” 1197 Reply at 7 (emphasis added).
`• Petitioners fail to explain why one of skill in the art would want
`to “provide additional levels of granularity” to Bergsten’s access
`controls.
`• Petitioners never explain why one would want access controls in
`an open access system designed to “allow multiple host
`computers at different locations to access any copy of stored
`data.” Ex. 1007 at 1:40-42 (emphasis added).
`
`82
`
`
`
`THE COMBINATION DOESN’T HAVE A
`MAP IDENTIFYING THE PARTICULAR
`HOST
`
`83
`
`
`
`Petitioners Allege that Bergsten Identifies a Particular Host in a
`Single Host Device Per Host Interface Combination
`
`Petitioners cite Ex. 1010 (Chase Decl.) ¶ 45-46 to support their “single host
`device per interface” argument.
`
`1197 Reply at 5
`
`84
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Evidence Does Not Support Its Assertion
`
`Ex. 1010 ¶ 45-46 Does Not Relate to Bergsten/Hirai, but to the CRD-5500
`
`Ex. 1010 (Chase Decl.) ¶ ¶ 45 - 46
`
`85
`
`
`
`Even if One Host Per Interface Were Relevant to the Claims, the
`Combination Does Not Have the Claimed Map
`
`• The claimed inventions use access controls to limit
`a host’s access to storage according to a map.
`1197 POR at 8, 11.
`• The host interface ID, like the channel number in
`the CRD, does not identify the host.
`1197 POR at 34-36.
`• Even though the messages may go back to the right
`host in a one host per interface embodiment, it is
`not achieving this using the claimed invention.
`
`86
`
`
`
`BERGSTEN-KIKUCHI
`IPR2014-1207, -1209
`
`87
`
`
`
`Overview of Bergsten-Kikuchi
`
`• The Bergsten-Kikuchi combination does not have the claimed access controls
`• Access controls require limiting a host’s access to a specified storage space
`• Kikuchi’s offsets do not specify storage space
`• Kikuchi cannot limit access to specified storage
`
`•
`
`Just like in the Bergsten-Hirai combination, Petitioners place the emulation drivers of
`Bergsten before the alleged map – rendering it impossible to map to hosts
`• Unlike in Hirai, where Petitioners asserted a new combination, here Petitioners fail to respond to
`Patent Owner’s argument at all
`• Both experts agree that the emulation drivers of Bergsten strip ALL host identification, so
`nothing is left to map against
`
`• One of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Kikuchi and Bergsten
`as Petitioners assert
`•
`If a combination would have been made at all, it would have been made without the complicated
`changes suggested by Dr. Chase
`• That combination would not practice the claimed invention
`• The complicated changes Dr. Chase proposes could only come from hindsight
`• Patent Owner created its invention before Kikuchi
`
`88
`
`
`
`The Bergsten-Kikuchi Combination Does
`Not Have the Claimed Access Controls
`
`89
`
`
`
`Petitioners Rely on the Alleged Access Controls of Kikuchi for
`their Combination
`
`1209 Pet. at 33-34
`
`90
`
`
`
`The Invention is Directed Toward Mapping
`Each Host to Specified Storage Space
`
`The invention requires the capability to map different storage to
`different hosts on the same transport medium (i.e., a common
`communications link):
`
`1209 POR at 5
`
`cited in 1209 POR at 3-7 (citing Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶¶ 51-53
`
`91
`
`
`
`So That Each Host Will Only See and
`Have Access to its Designated Storage
`
`1209 POR at 8 (citing Levy Decl (Ex. 2053)) ¶ 59
`
`92
`
`
`
`“Access Controls” Limitations
`
`“The claimed access controls/controlling access limitations . . . are device specific in
`that the storage router controls what storage access is available to specified hosts
`so that different hosts can be provided different storage access.”
`
`‘147 Patent at 4:35-38
`
`cited in 1207 POR at 2-3, 47 93
`
`
`
`Kikuchi is Directed to the Sharing of a Single Large Volume Disk
`Between Several Hosts
`
`1209 POR at 32
`
`94
`
`
`
`Kikuchi’s Correlation Chart Does Not Map Storage to Hosts
`
`1209 POR at 35
`
`95
`
`
`
`Kikuchi’s Correlation Chart Does Not Map Storage to Hosts
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 152
`
`cited in 1209 at 34
`
`96
`
`
`
`Kikuchi Does Not Utilize Host Identification to Permit or Limit
`Access to Particular Storage Space but Instead Merely Uses
`Offsets
`
`Ex. 1006, 7:46-63
`
`cited in 1209 POR 35-36
`
`97
`
`
`
`Offsets Are Just an Integer and Cannot Identify Storage Space
`
`1209 POR at 33
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 150
`
`98
`
`
`
`Offsets Are Just an Integer and Cannot Identify Storage Space
`
`Dr. Chase agreed that an offset is merely an added number:
`
`Ex. 2054 (Chase Depo.) at 107:10-16
`
`cited in 1209 POR at 33
`
`99
`
`
`
`Kikuchi’s Correlation Chart Does Not Limit a Host’s Visibility or
`Access to Storage Allocated in the Map
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 152
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 153
`
`cited in 1209 POR at 35
`
`100
`
`
`
`Access Controls Limit a Host Computer’s Access to a Specific
`Subset of Storage Devices or Section of a Single Storage Device
`According to a Map
`
`1209 POR at 36
`
`≠
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 150
`
`1209 POR at 8
`
`101
`
`
`
`The Bergsten-Kikuchi Combination Does Not Have
`the Claimed Access Controls
`
`• Access controls require limiting a host’s access to a
`specified storage space
`
`• Kikuchi’s offsets do not specify storage space
`
`• Kikuchi cannot limit access to specified storage
`
`102
`
`
`
`Just Like in the Bergsten-Hirai
`Combination, Petitioners Place the
`Emulation Drivers of Bergsten Before the
`Alleged Map – Rendering It Impossible to
`Map to Hosts
`
`103
`
`
`
`The Combination Incorporates Bergsten’s Emulation Drivers
`
`Petitioners incorporate Bergsten’s emulation drivers into Kikuchi.
`
`Ex. 1010 (Chase Decl.) ¶ 143
`
`1209 Pet. at 36
`
`104
`cited in 1209 POR 47
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Combination Expressly Incorporates Bergsten’s
`Emulation Drivers at the Host Device Interface Well Before
`Commands Reach the Correlation Chart
`
`1209 Pet. at 33
`
`105
`
`
`
`Petitioners Agree that the Emulation Drivers
`Would Only Provide the SCSI Command
`
`1197 Pet. at 47
`
`cited in 1197 POR at 37-39
`
`106
`
`
`
`Dr. Chase Testifies that the Emulation Drivers Would Strip the
`Host Information and Pass Only the SCSI Command
`
`“… that conversion would involve primarily
`deencapsulating the commands and transmitting
`the commands to the operating system without the
`framing and various other information that's
`necessary to transmit those commands reliably
`across the network.”
`
`Ex. 2055 (Chase Depo.) at 234:5-10;
`1209 Ex. 2053 (Levy Decl.) ¶ 122
`
`Petitioners concede that Host ID is only in the framing.
`
`1209 Pet. at 18
`
`cited at 1209 POR at 22, 47-48
`
`107
`
`
`
`Because the Emulation Drivers Strip Host Information,
`the Combination Does Not Work
`
`1209 Pet. at 48
`
`cited in 1209 POR 47-48
`
`108
`
`
`
`Just Like in the Bergsten-Hirai Combination, Petitioners Place
`the Emulation Drivers of Bergsten Before the Alleged Map –
`Rendering it Impossible to Map to Hosts
`
`• Unlike in Hirai, where Petitioners asserted a new
`combination, here Petitioners fail to respond to
`Patent Owner’s argument at all
`
`• Both experts agree that the emulation drivers of
`Bergsten strip ALL host identification, so nothing
`is left to map against
`
`109
`
`
`
`One of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Not
`Have Combined Kikuchi and Bergsten
`as Petitioners Assert
`
`110
`
`
`
`Petitioners Propose Changes to Bo
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
