`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 GROUNDS
`
`CRD-5500 RELATED GROUNDS
`(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 Both Kikuchi and Bergsten to
`Get the Alleged “Enhance