Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167 Filed 08/10/11 Page 1 of 2
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`2011 AUG I 0 PM 12: 1 S
`
`CROSSROAD SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`~
`Case No.l:10-CV-65Bli.~ ---.
`'J r·F;7{---------~-
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`3PAR,INC.,
`AMERICAN MEGA TRENDS, INC.,
`RORKE DATA, INC.,
`D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.,
`CHELSIO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (a
`Delaware corporation).
`ISTOR NETWORKS, INC., and
`CHELSIO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (a
`California corporation)
`
`Defendants.
`
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL MASTER
`REGARDING UNITED STATES PATENT NO.'S 7,051,147 & 6,425,035 B2
`
`Attached hereto is the Special Master's Report and Recommendations to United
`
`States District Judge Sam Sparks regarding the construction of claims in United States
`
`Patent No.'s 7,051,147 & 6,425,035 B2.
`
`The parties may file written ·objections to the recommendations made in this
`
`report within ten (1 0) days from the date of their receipt of it, as discussed at the
`
`conclusion of the Markman hearing.
`
`SIGNED this the 9t~ day of August, 2011.
`
`--
`
`(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`
` CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 2008
`Oracle Corp. et al v Crossroads Systems, Inc.
` IPR2014-01207
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167 Filed 08/10/11 Page 2 of 2
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on the 9th day of August, 2011, I electronically filed the
`foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification
`of such filing to counsel of record in this action.
`
`Is/ Karl Bayer
`Karl Bayer
`
`2
`(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167-1 Filed 08/10/11 Page 1 of 20
`
`SPECIAL MASTER'S RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTIONS
`PATENT NO. 6,425,035 B2
`
`Term
`
`Device
`
`Special Master's Recommended Construction
`
`No Construction Necessary.
`
`Implement access controls
`for storage space on the
`storage devices.
`Allow access from
`devices ... to the storage
`devices using native low
`level, block protocol.
`Native low level block
`protocol (NLLBP)
`
`Workstation
`
`Access control( s)
`
`"Provides controls which limit a device's access to a specific subset
`of storage devices or sections of a single storage device according to
`a map."
`"Permit or deny access using the NLLBP of the Virtual Local
`Storage without involving a translation from high level network
`protocols or file system protocols to a native low level block protocol
`request."
`"A set of rules or standards that enable computers to exchange
`information and do not involve the overhead of high level protocols
`and file systems typically required by network servers."
`"A computer having input/output devices intended for use by
`humans."
`
`"Controls which limit a device's access to a specific subset of
`storage devices or sections of a single storage device according to a
`map."
`
`(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`Crossroads' Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants'
`
`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167-1 Filed 08/10/11 Page 2 of 20
`
`Device:
`
`Intrinsic:
`
`Device:
`
`I Computer.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`
`
`1:37-392, 47-49, 57-60
`
`No Construction
`Necessary.
`
`Claim 1,1 Col. 9, 11. 27-
`30 ("devices" refers to
`the devices that make
`requests and are allowed
`access to storage
`devices).
`
`Col. 1, 11. 36-37; Col. 2,
`11. 4-5; Col. 4, II. 55-56;
`Col. 8, 11. 65-68 (the
`specification describes
`the devices that make
`requests to access the
`storage devices as
`"computing devices").
`
`Col. 1, 11. 57-60 ("from
`the perspective of a
`workstation, or other
`computing device,
`seeking to access such
`server data, the access is
`much slower than access
`to data on a local
`storage device ").
`
`4:29-33 ("Storage router
`56 combines access
`control with routing
`such that each
`workstation 58 has
`controlled access to only
`the specified partition of
`storage device 62 which
`forms virtual local
`storage for the
`workstation 58.")
`
`4:39-40
`
`4:58-59 ("no access
`from a workstation 58 is
`allowed to the virtual
`local storage of another
`workstation."
`
`Cf Fig. 2 and Fig. 3
`
`First Reexam Reply3 at
`8-9, 15
`
`A storage router for
`providing virtual local
`storage on remote
`storage devices to
`devices, comprising:
`
`Device:
`
`"Computing device that
`issues storage access
`requests."
`
`(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`1 United States Patent No. 6.425,035 ("the '035 Patent") and United States Patent No. 7,051,147 ("the '14 7 Patent") share a common specification. To facilitate cross-referencing,
`unless noted otherwise, all Col:Line cites in the charts of proposed claim constructions are to the '035 Patent.
`2 As in the claim construction briefs previously submitted to the Court. all specification citations are to the '035 patent unless otherwise noted.
`3 For the sake of clarity, commonly cited documents are referenced in the "Defendants' Evidence" column by the abbreviated names used in prior briefing. A table of these
`abbreviations was included in Defendant's Reply Post-Hearing Brief and is also appended to this table.
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167-1 Filed 08/10/11 Page 3 of 20
`
`I
`
`•
`
`Defendants'
`Evidence
`
`Special Master's
`Construction
`
`Second Reexam Reply
`at 7, 8, 8-15 passim, 16,
`17, 22, 23, 28, 39-40
`
`Second Reexam Reply
`at 7 ("The invention of
`the '035 patent further
`provides the security
`feature of providing
`access controls in order
`to control which storage
`devices (or portions
`thereof) any particular
`host computer can
`access.")
`
`Special Master's Proposed Construction of Disputed Terms
`Crossroads' Proposed
`Crossroads'
`Defendants' Proposed
`Construction
`Evidence
`Construction
`Claim 3, Col. 9, ll. 37-
`39 (principles of claim
`differentiation require
`"devices," as a group,
`must necessarily be
`broader than
`"workstations").
`
`CoL 6, 11. 31-41, 46-56
`(the specification
`describes "servers" as a
`type of computing
`device that can make
`storage access requests).
`
`Abstract, Col. 1, 11. 21-
`24, 11. 36-37, 11. 53-56;
`Col. 2, 11. 4-6; Col. 3, 11.
`3-6, 41-43; Col. 4, 11.
`38-42, 11. 55-56 Col. 6,
`11. 45-55; Col. 8, 11. 65-
`68 ("devices" is used
`broadly to refer to
`various computing
`devices such as
`workstations,
`input/output devices,
`"initiator" and "target"
`devices).
`
`April 6, 2005 Reply to
`Office Action at 8, 10,
`12, 22, Fore Decl. ISO
`Crossroads' Post-Hr'g
`Cl. Const., Ex. E; July
`22, 2005 Reply to
`Office Action at 7-15,
`
`2
`
`Second Reexam Reply
`at 8 ("Thus, the present
`invention ... allows the
`host computers to access
`the remote storage
`devices over the
`network ... ")
`
`Second Reexam Reply
`at 15 ("In summary, the
`invention ofthe '035
`Patent provides a
`networked storage
`solution that combines
`the ability to allow
`access from host
`computers to remote
`storage devices using
`NLLBPs with the ability
`- - to co!ltrol access - - -
`
`- -
`
`-
`
`Actual Claims
`Language
`
`(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`Special Master's Proposed Construction of Disputed Terms
`Defendants' Proposed
`Crossroads' Proposed
`Crossroads'
`Construction
`Evidence
`Construction
`21-23, 27-29, 32, 33,
`35-37, 39, Fore Decl.
`ISO Crossroads' Post-
`Hr'g Cl. Const. Br., Ex.
`F ("Device" is used over
`ninety times in the
`reexamination
`prosecution history to
`refer to types of devices
`capable of making
`requests for storage).
`
`Defendants'
`Evidence
`between host computers
`and the remote storage
`devices .... " Second
`Reexam Reply at 16
`("The present invention
`as recited in Claim 1
`thus enables computers
`to access remote storage
`devices ... ")
`
`Extrinsic:
`
`April28, 2011 2d Supp.
`Decl. of John Levy,
`Ph.D.,, 4 (one of
`ordinary skill would
`understand that in the
`embodiments at Col. 6,
`11. 33-41; 46-56, it is the
`server that sends
`requests for storage
`access to the storage
`router using NLLBP).
`
`The McGraw-Hill
`Illustrated Dictionary of
`Personal ComQuters 126
`(4th ed. 1995), Fore
`Decl. ISO Crossroads'
`Cl. Const. Br., Ex. W
`(defining device as "a
`mechanical, electrical or
`electromechanical
`contrivance or
`appliance. Commonly
`
`3
`
`Actual Claims
`Langua_g_e
`
`(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167-1 Filed 08/10/11 Page 4 of 20
`
`Special Master's
`Construction
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`Second Reexam Reply
`at 35
`(Spring "does not teach
`access controls as
`defined by the '035
`Patent"; "in contrast to
`the invention of the '035
`Patent, this [access
`control] methodology
`described in Spring does
`not limit access of
`particular workstations
`to specific assigned
`subsets of storage
`devices or portions
`thereof.")
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Jt. Ex. 109, Crossroads
`v. Chaparral, Joint
`Claim Construction
`Order at 3 Crossroads'
`argument that
`"implements access
`controls" should be
`construed as "provides
`
`

`

`Special Master's Proposed Construction of Disputed Terms
`Crossroads' Proposed
`Crossroads'
`Defendants' Proposed
`Construction
`Evidence
`Construction
`used in reference to
`peripherals such as
`printers, CR TS and disk
`drives").
`
`Hr'g Tr. at 202:24-
`203:3,205:4-7, Mar. 8,
`20 11 (Defendants'
`counsel agreeing that
`the defining
`characteristic of a
`device is that it is the
`thing that issues storage
`requests).
`
`May 11,2011 3d Supp.
`Decl. of John Levy,
`Ph.D., ~3 (a "network
`server" is a server that
`can request access to
`storage).
`
`Microsoft ComQuter
`Dictionary 430 (3d Ed.
`1997), May 11, 2011 3d
`Supp. Decl. of John
`Levy, Ph.D., Ex. A
`(defining ••server" as
`"( 1) on a local area
`network (LAN), a
`computer running
`administrative software
`that controls access to
`the network and its
`resources, such as
`printers and disk drives,
`... _!lnd provides resources
`
`4
`
`Actual Claims
`Language
`
`(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`- - - - - -
`
`- -
`
`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167-1 Filed 08/10/11 Page 5 of 20
`
`Special Master's
`Construction
`
`Defendants'
`Evidence
`controls which limit a
`computer's access")
`
`Def. Ex. 19, Rudolf
`Graf, Modern
`Dictionary of
`Electronics (1999) at
`353
`
`Def. Ex. 20, Microsoft
`Computer Dictionary
`(5th ed. 2002) at 256
`
`Berg Decl. ~ 59-63.
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167-1 Filed 08/10/11 Page 6 of 20
`
`'
`
`I
`
`I
`
`Defendants'
`Evidence
`
`Special Master's
`Construction
`
`Actual Claims
`Lan2ua2e
`
`Special Master's Proposed Construction of Disputed Terms
`Crossroads' Proposed
`Crossroads'
`Defendants' Proposed
`Construction
`Evidence
`Construction
`to computers
`functioning as
`workstations on the
`network").
`Special Master's Report
`at 22, Dot Hill
`Litigation, Pl.'s CL
`Const. Hr' g Ex. P-15
`(Court previously
`construed "storage
`router" as "a data
`transmitting device that
`allows users to integrate
`different servers or
`workstations into a
`storage network").
`
`Implement access
`controls for storage
`space on the storage
`devices:
`
`a buffer providing
`memory work space
`for the storage router;
`a first controller
`operable to connect to
`and interface with a
`"Provides controls
`first transport medium; which limit a device's
`a second controller
`access to a specific
`operable to connect to
`subset of storage
`and interface with a
`devices or sections of a
`second transport
`single storage device
`medium;
`according to a map."
`and a supervisor unit
`coupled to the first
`controller, the second
`controller and the
`buffer, the supervisor
`unit operable to map
`between devices
`connected to the first
`
`Implement access
`controls for storage
`space on the storage
`devices:
`
`Intrinsic:
`
`Fig. 3, Col. 3, II. 7-59,
`Col. 4, ll. 7-27, 33-35,
`40-43, 48-50, 50-53
`(Fig. 3 shows
`embodiment in which
`all workstations can
`access global storage
`device).
`
`Col. 4, 11. 7-11 ("access
`controls" applies to
`shared storage).
`
`Access controls:
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Controls that use a map
`to permit a particular
`device to read data from
`or write data to a
`particular storage space
`assigned to the device,
`and to prevent the
`device from reading
`data to or writing data
`from storage space
`assigned to other
`devices.
`
`3:30-32, 56-59 ("FIG.
`2 ... , indicated generally
`at 30, with a storage
`router that provides
`global access and
`routing ....
`Storage router 44 uses
`tables to map devices
`from one medium to the
`other and distributes
`requests and data across
`Fiber Channel 32 and
`SCSI bus 34 without
`any security access
`controls.")
`
`4:17-24, 26-27 ("As
`shown in FIG. 3, fo_r_
`
`5
`
`"Provides controls
`which limit a device's
`access to a specific
`subset of storage
`devices or sections of a
`single storage device
`according to a map."
`
`(cid:27)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`Special Master's Proposed Construction of Disputed Terms
`Defendants' Proposed
`Crossroads' Proposed
`Crossroads'
`Evidence
`Construction
`Construction
`July 22, 2005 Reply to
`Office Action at 13-14,
`Fore Decl. ISO
`Crossroads' Post-Hr'g
`Cl. Const. Br., Ex. F
`(discussion during
`reexamination, that the
`"access controls" feature
`includes the concept of
`allowing multiple
`devices to have access
`to shared storage).
`
`Extrinsic:
`
`Chaparral Markman
`Order at 3-7, 15, Fore
`Decl. ISO Crossroads'
`Cl. Const. Br., Ex. L
`(Crossroads'
`construction parallels
`historic construction;
`the invention
`contemplates using
`access controls for an
`entire storage device as
`well as shared storage;
`Court has rejected a
`construction in which a
`particular subset of
`storage could only be
`accessed by a single
`workstation).
`
`Comments on Statement
`of Reasons for
`Patentability and/or
`
`6
`
`Actual Claims
`Language
`transport medium and
`the storage devices, to
`implement access
`controls for storage
`space on the storage
`devices and to process
`data in the buffer to
`interface between the
`first controller and the
`second controller to
`allow access from
`devices connected to
`the first transport
`medium to the storage
`devices using native
`low level, block
`protocols.
`
`(cid:28)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167-1 Filed 08/10/11 Page 7 of 20
`
`Special Master's
`Construction
`
`Defendants'
`Evidence
`example, storage device
`50 can be configured to
`provide global data 65
`which can be accessed
`by all workstation 58.
`Storage device 62 can
`be configured to provide
`partitioned subsets 66,
`68, 70 and 72, where
`each partition is
`allocated to one ofthe
`workstations 58
`(workstations A, B, C
`and D). These subsets
`66, 68, 70 and 72 can
`only be accessed by the
`associated workstation
`58 and appear to the
`associated workstation
`58 .... Similarly, storage
`device 64 can be
`allocated as storage for
`the remaining
`workstation 58
`(workstation E)."
`
`Fig. 3
`--
`
`First Reexam Reply at
`13 ("[T] the access
`controls provide the
`capability to permit or
`deny each computer
`access to a particular
`storage device, a set of
`storage devices or
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167-1 Filed 08/10/11 Page 8 of 20
`
`Actual Claims
`Language
`
`Special Master's Proposed Construction of Disputed Terms
`Crossroads' Proposed
`Crossroads'
`Defendants' Proposed
`Construction
`Evidence
`Construction
`Confirmation, Fore
`Decl. ISO Pl.'s Cl.
`Const. Br., Ex. I
`(patentees expressly
`disagreed with any
`characterization of the
`claims that were
`"inconsistent with the
`claim language,
`specification or prior
`prosecution history.").
`
`Defendants'
`Evidence
`portions of a single
`storage device or
`devices (or any
`combination thereof).
`By assigning storage
`devices or portions
`thereof to particular
`computer workstations,
`the present invention
`prevents each computer
`workstation from
`overwriting or
`modifying data in
`storage assigned to
`another computer
`workstation.")
`
`Special Master's
`Construction
`
`First Reexam Reply at
`33 ("The access controls
`of claim 1 thus permit or
`deny access from
`particular host devices
`connected to the first
`data transport medium
`to particular storage
`devices (or subsets
`thereof) according to a
`map that associates the
`host devices with the
`remote storage
`devices .... ")
`--
`
`Second Reexam Reply
`at 13 ("By assigning
`storage devices or
`portions thereof to
`
`7
`
`(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167-1 Filed 08/10/11 Page 9 of 20
`
`Special Master's Proposed Construction of Disputed Terms
`Crossroads' Proposed
`Crossroads'
`Defendants' Proposed
`Construction
`Evidence
`Construction
`
`Defendants'
`Evidence
`particular computer
`workstations, the
`present invention
`prevents each computer
`workstations [sic] from
`overwriting or
`modifying data in
`storage assigned to
`another workstation").
`
`Special Master's
`Construction
`
`Second Reexam Reply
`at 33
`("To implement access
`controls requires more
`than simply allowing a
`host to have access to a
`storage device.
`Implementing access
`controls is a security
`measure designed to
`prevent unauthorized
`access from
`workstations to
`particular storage
`devices or subsets of
`storage as claimed and
`described in the '035
`Patent.")
`
`Second Reexam Reply
`at 33
`("The access controls of
`the '035 Patent depend
`on the map discussed
`above to control
`access .... In other words,
`the storage to which
`
`8
`
`Actual Claims
`Lan2ua2e
`
`(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167-1 Filed 08/10/11 Page 10 of 20
`
`Special Master's
`Construction
`
`Special Master's Proposed Construction of Disputed Terms
`Defendants' Proposed
`Crossroads' Proposed
`Crossroads'
`Construction
`Construction
`Evidence
`
`Defendants'
`Evidence
`each workstation is
`permitted access is
`controlled through the
`use ofthe map .... The
`access controls ... thus
`permit or deny access
`from particular host
`devices connected to the
`first data transport
`medium to particular
`storage devices (or
`subsets thereof)
`according to a map that
`associates the host
`devices with the remote
`storage devices.")
`
`Def. Ex. 8, NIIRC ("the
`map/mapping
`feature .. .is a one-to-one
`correspondence ... where
`by the router forms the
`connection between two
`separate entities over
`different transport
`mediums.")
`
`U.S. Pat. __ '036
`patent Reply to Office
`Action at 15
`
`U.S. Pat. 6,421,753
`Patent Reply to Office
`Action at 12
`
`U.S. Pat. 6,738,854
`
`9
`
`Actual Claims
`Language
`
`(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167-1 Filed 08/10/11 Page 11 of 20
`
`I
`!
`
`Special Master's
`Construction
`
`"Permit or deny access
`using the NLLBP of the
`Virtual Local Storage
`without involving a
`translation from high
`level network protocols
`or file system protocols
`to a native low level
`block protocol request."
`
`Actual Claims
`Language
`
`Special Master's Proposed Construction of Disputed Terms
`Crossroads' Proposed
`Crossroads'
`Defendants' Proposed
`Construction
`Evidence
`Construction
`
`Defendants'
`Evidence
`patent Reply to Office
`Action at 19
`
`Allow access ... to the
`storage devices using
`native low level, block
`protocols:
`
`Permit reading and
`writing of data in the
`native low level, block
`protocol of the storage
`device, without
`involving network
`servers, Ethernet
`networks, higher-level
`protocols such as
`TCP/IP, Ethernet
`protocols, network
`protocols or file system
`protocols, or translation
`from one protocol to
`another.
`
`Allow access from
`devices .•. to the
`storage devices using
`native low level block
`protocols:
`
`Intrinsic:
`
`Fig. 1, Col. 1, 11. 49-54;
`Col. 3, II. 17-23 (the
`"storage router" of the
`invention is contrasted
`with a "network server"
`that allowed access to
`storage devices by
`translating high level
`file system commands
`of the "network
`protocol" into low level
`requests (i.e., NLLBP)
`and sending the NLLBP
`to the physical storage
`devices).
`
`Claim 1, Col. 9, 11. 13-
`30 (storage router
`"allow[s] access from
`devices connected to the
`first transport medium
`to the storage devices
`using native low level,
`
`10
`
`U.S. Pat.5,942,972
`Reply to Office Action
`at 13.
`IN GENERAL-
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`1:43-46
`--
`
`First Reexam Reply at 8
`("features of the present
`invention ... also allow a
`host (or hosts) to
`communicate with
`storage devices using
`only native low level
`block protocols.")
`(emphasis added)
`
`First Reexam Reply at
`10 (system in which "at
`least one high level to
`low level translation
`takes place between the
`workstation and the
`storage device" reflects
`prior art, not the alleged
`invention)
`
`First Reexam Reply at
`1 9 ("Petal, on the other
`hand, teaches a system
`in which a Petal client
`issues high level
`
`Allow access from
`devices ... to the
`storage devices using
`native low level block
`protocols:
`
`and a supervisor unit
`coupled to the first
`controller, the second
`controller and the
`buffer, the supervisor
`unit operable to map
`between devices
`"Permit or deny reading
`connected to the first
`or writing of data using
`transport medium and
`the NLLBP of the
`the storage devices, to Virtual Local Storage
`implement access
`without involving a
`controls for storage
`translation from a high
`space on the storage
`level file system
`devices and to process
`command to a native
`data in the buffer to
`low level, block
`interface between the
`protocol request."
`first controller and the
`second controller to
`allow access from
`devices connected to
`the first transport
`medium to the storage
`devices using native
`low level, block
`protocols.
`
`(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167-1 Filed 08/10/11 Page 12 of 20
`
`I
`
`Special Master's
`Construction
`
`Special Master's Proposed Construction of Disputed Terms
`Defendants' Proposed
`Crossroads' Proposed
`Crossroads'
`Construction
`Evidence
`Construction
`block protocols"
`(emphasis added); the
`storage router,
`specifically, the
`supervisor unit within
`the storage router,
`"uses" the NLLBP to
`permit or enable access).
`
`Defendants'
`Evidence
`commands .... Conseque
`ntly, the Petal server
`does not allow the Petal
`clients to access the
`storage devices using an
`NLLBP"),
`
`Col. 4, 11. 7-47
`(invention of patents-in-
`suit provides "virtual
`local storage" that
`appears to a workstation
`as local storage, and
`appears to have the
`same characteristics of
`local storage).
`
`Col. 4, 11. 44-57 ("virtual
`local storage" is
`"provided" by the
`storage router in a
`manner that is
`transparent to the
`devices requesting
`storage access).
`
`Col. 5, 11. 11-17, 11. 24-
`27 (supervisor unit
`within the storage router
`processes NLLBP
`requests from the
`devices to access
`permitted storage).
`
`Abstract; Col. 2, ll. 12-
`
`11
`
`First Reexam Reply at
`23
`--
`
`Second Reexam Reply
`at 16 ("Spring and
`Oeda, in contrast to the
`invention ofthe '035
`Patent ... require the use
`of higher level network
`protocols (and therefore
`cannot allow access to
`the remote storage
`devices using NLLBPs).
`Thus, these references
`suffer the shortcomings
`of exactly the type of
`prior art the present
`invention was designed
`to overcome.")
`
`IN GENERAL-
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Berg. Decl. ~~ 14-29,
`36-58
`
`Levy Decl. ~ 36 ("the
`invention of the Patents-
`
`Actual Claims
`Language
`
`(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167-1 Filed 08/10/11 Page 13 of 20
`
`I
`
`Special Master's
`Construction
`
`Special Master's Proposed Construction of Disputed Terms
`Crossroads' Proposed
`Crossroads'
`Defendants' Proposed
`Construction
`Evidence
`Construction
`15,17-20, 24-27; Col. 3,
`11. 59-63; Col. 3, 11. 51-
`53; Col. 4, ll. 2-6; Col.
`5, 11. 1-5; Col. 9, 11. 28-
`31; Col. 10, 11. 9-11
`(specification discloses
`that NLLBPs are used
`by, and at, the storage
`router to allow access).
`
`Defendants'
`Evidence
`in-Suit enables the
`workstation to send an
`NLLBP to the storage
`router in order to make a
`request for data.")
`
`WITHOUT
`INVOLVING
`NETWORK
`SERVERS-
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Col. 6, 11. 33-41, 46-56
`(specification describes
`two embodiments
`wherein "devices"
`making the storage
`access request are
`servers).
`
`Col. 1, 11. 57-60 ("from
`the perspective of a
`workstation, or other
`computing device,
`seeking to access such
`server data, the access is
`much slower than access
`to data on a local
`storage device ").
`
`Claim 3, Col. 9, 11. 37-
`39 (principles of claim
`differentiation require
`"devices," as a group,
`must necessarily be
`broader than
`"workstations").
`
`Col. 3, ll. 17-23 (the
`
`12
`
`1:47-60, 2:51-52, 2:67-
`3:9, 3:16-25 (describing
`problems of network
`server-based systems)
`
`1:50-54 ("Access to data
`through the network
`server is through a
`network protocol that
`the server must translate
`into low level requests
`to the storage device")
`
`3:32-34 ("significantly
`different from FIG. 1 in
`that there is no network
`server involved")
`
`5:1-5 (access is
`"accomplished without
`limiting the
`performance of
`workstations 58 because
`storage access involves
`native low level, block
`
`Actual Claims
`Language
`
`(cid:20)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167-1 Filed 08/10/11 Page 14 of 20
`
`I
`
`Special Master's
`Construction
`
`Special Master's Proposed Construction of Disputed Terms
`Crossroads' Proposed
`Crossroads'
`Defendants' Proposed
`Construction
`Evidence
`Construction
`"network protocol'' used
`by the prior art
`"network servers" to
`allow access to storage
`devices is a protocol
`that includes a high
`level file system
`command that must be
`translated into low level
`storage requests).
`
`Defendants'
`Evidence
`protocols and does not
`involve the overhead of
`high level protocols and
`file systems required by
`network servers.")
`--
`
`April 6, 2005 Reply to
`Office Action at 10-11,
`Fore Dec I. ISO
`Crossroads' Post-Hr'g
`Cl. Const. Br., Ex. E;
`July 22, 2005 Reply to
`Office Action at 24-27,
`Fore Decl. ISO
`Crossroads' Post-Hr'g
`Cl. Const. Br., Ex. F
`(Crossroads
`distinguished Petal,
`Spring and Oeda as
`having a server that
`provided controlled
`access to storage was
`required to translate
`high level file system
`commands into low
`level commands in order
`to send the NLLBP to
`the storage devices).
`
`April6, 2005 Reply to
`Office Action at 8-11,
`19,22-23, Fore Decl.
`
`13
`
`First Reexam Reply at
`8-9 (distinguishing Petal
`on basis that
`workstation must create
`network protocols to
`communicate with
`network server)
`
`First Reexam Reply at
`9-10 (noting that use of
`a network server
`necessarily involves
`translation to higher
`level protocols)
`
`First Reexam Reply at
`11 ("the Petal system
`does not allow the client
`(i.e. workstation) to
`access the storage
`devices using an
`NLLBP .... [W]hile the
`Examiner has pointed
`out various portions of
`Petal that discuss using
`block level (i.e. low
`level) storage protocols,
`it is only in the context
`of the time period after
`high level RPCs have
`
`Actual Claims
`Language
`
`(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`Defendants'
`Evidence
`been transformed to low
`level SCSI commands.
`The system of Petal is
`the type of system that
`the present invention
`was designed to
`overcome ... ")
`--
`
`Second Reexam Reply
`at 10, 12, 13, 22
`
`Special Master's Proposed Construction of Disputed Terms
`Crossroads' Proposed
`Crossroads'
`Defendants' Proposed
`Construction
`Evidence
`Construction
`ISO Crossroads' Post-
`Hr'g Cl. Const. Br., Ex.
`E; July 22, 2005 Reply
`to Office Action at 11-
`17,21-28, Fore Decl.
`ISO Crossroads' Post-
`Hr' g Cl. Const. Br., Ex.
`F (showing that
`Crossroads did not make
`a sweeping disclaimer
`of any use of a "network
`server"; Crossroads
`distinguished its
`invention from Oeda,
`Petal and Spring based
`on the requirement that
`the "network server"
`that provided controlled
`access to storage was
`required to translate the
`high level file system
`command into low level
`commands in order to
`send the NLLBP to the
`storage device, not the
`use of Ethernet
`networks, Ethernet or
`TCP/IP).
`
`Col. 2, ll. 17-20; Col. 5,
`II. 19-22, 50-57, 60-63;
`Col. 6, II. 32-37; '147
`Patent, Claim 1, Col. 9,
`II. 28-32 (disclosing and
`claiming embodiments
`using Fibre Channel; the
`inclusion of "without
`
`14
`
`Actual Claims
`Language
`
`(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167-1 Filed 08/10/11 Page 15 of 20
`
`Special Master's
`Construction
`
`Second Reexam Reply
`at 9-10 ("A problem
`with this prior art
`solution was that the
`network server creates a
`bottleneck which slows
`down remote access
`because, at least in part,
`the computer or
`workstation needs to
`create something called
`a 'network protocol' to
`send the data over the
`distance-capable
`transport medium.
`Thus, the introduction
`of a network server into
`the system creates a
`bottleneck which slows
`down access to remote
`storage devices.")
`(citing '035 patent at
`1:47-54)
`
`Second Reexam Reply
`
`---
`
`

`

`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167-1 Filed 08/10/11 Page 16 of 20
`
`Special Master's
`Construction
`
`Special Master's Proposed Construction of Disputed Terms
`Crossroads' Proposed
`Crossroads'
`Defendants' Proposed
`Construction
`Evidence
`Construction
`involving ... network
`protocols" according to
`Defendants' expert
`would prohibit the use
`of Fibre Channel despite
`the fact that these are
`express embodiments).
`
`Defendants'
`Evidence
`at 11 ("It takes the
`computer time to create
`a network protocol")
`
`Second Reexam Reply
`at 13 (the invention
`"does away with the
`time consuming and
`complex steps of
`creating and processing
`higher-level network
`protocols at a server.")
`(emphasis added)
`
`Col. 5, 11. 53-56 (Fibre
`Channel is a protocol
`used for
`communications over
`"Fibre Channel based
`networks").
`
`Extrinsic:
`
`March 7, 2011 Supp.
`Decl. of John Levy,
`Ph.D.,~~ 9-13 (data
`transfer in networks best
`understood as having
`layers; when TCPIIP
`and Ethernet protocols
`were used by prior art
`systems to transport
`high level network file
`system requests, a
`network server would
`translate such requests
`into low level requests
`to access storage); ~~6-7
`(prior art "server"
`described in patents-in-
`suit was specifically a
`device that allowed
`access between the
`
`15
`
`Second Reexam Reply
`at 13 ("The present
`invention thus routes
`NLLBPs to the remote
`storage devices without
`involving a network
`server.")
`
`Second Reexam Reply
`at 10:-13 (Graphics 2-4).
`Second Reexam Reply
`at 22 (workstation must
`create network protocols
`to communicate with
`network server)
`
`Second Reexam Reply
`at 22 ("This ability to
`allow access from host
`computers to storage
`devices using a NLLBP,
`as recited in Claim 1,
`requires allowing access
`
`Actual Claims
`Language
`
`(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`Special Master's Proposed Construction of Disputed Terms
`Crossroads' Proposed
`Crossroads'
`Defendants' Proposed
`Construction
`Evidence
`Construction
`device requesting
`"access to data" and the
`storage devices using
`something called a
`"network protocol";
`such "servers"
`implemented file
`systems and received
`high level file system
`protocols from devices
`requesting data access).
`
`Defendants'
`Evidence
`between the host and
`storage device(s) using a
`protocol (i.e., a set of
`rules) that does not
`involve the overhead of
`high level protocols and
`file systems typically
`required by network
`servers.")
`
`April28, 2011 2d Supp.
`Decl. of John Levy,
`Ph.D., ~4 (person of
`ordinary skill would
`understand that the
`specification discloses a
`server that sends
`requests for storage
`access to a storage
`router using NLLBP).
`
`May 11, 2011 3d Supp.
`Decl. of John Levy,
`Ph.D., ~3 (a "network
`server" is a server that
`can request access to
`storage).
`
`Microsoft ComQuter
`Dictionary 430 (3d Ed.
`1997), May 11,2011 3d
`Supp. Decl. of John
`Levy, Ph.D., Ex. A
`(defining "server" as
`"( 1) on a local area
`
`16
`
`Actual Claims
`Language
`
`(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:22)
`
`Case 1:10-cv-00652-SS Document 167-1 Filed 08/10/11 Page 17 of 20
`
`I
`
`Special Master's
`Construction
`
`Second Reexam Reply
`at 22 ("As discussed
`above, in systems prior
`to the present invention,
`when making a request
`to storage through a
`network server ... , a
`workstation first had to
`