Oracle Ex. 1240
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01197; -01207; -01209
`
`
`Oracle, et al. vs. Crossroads
`IPR2014-01197; -01207; -01209
`
`
`
`Obviousness Combinations
`
`- CRD—5500 User Manual in view of CRD—5500 Data Sheet and Smith
`
`> ’147 Patent Claims 14-39
`
`Paper1 (-1207), Petition, pp. 12-27
`
`- Bergsten in view of Hirai
`
`> ’035 Patent Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-12, 14
`
`Paper1(—1197), Petition, pp. 44-58
`
`» ’147 Patent Claims 1-2, 4, 5*, 10-11, 13
`
`Paper1 (-1209). Petition. pp. 44-58
`
`> ’147 Patent Claims 14-39
`
`Paper1(-1207), Petition, pp. 42-55
`
`- Kikuchi in view of Bergsten
`
`» ’147 Patent Claims 1-2, 4, 5*, 10-11, 13
`
`Paper1 (-1209). Petition. pp. 29-44
`
`> ’147 Patent Claims 14-39
`
`Paper1(—1207), Petition, pp. 27-42
`
`* And in view of Smith
`
`
`
`CRD-5500 User Manual in View of
`
`CRD-5500 Data Sheet and Smith
`
`’147 Patent Claims 14-39
`
`
`
`The CRD-5500 User Manual Teaches a Storage Controller
`that Maps Between Hosts and Storage Devices
`
`
`
`Figure 1-2 shows how vou can connect. as man 1-‘ as four hosts to the CRD-5500.
`This makes it possible
`
`for hosts 1'u1111j11g incompatible operating systems to use the same CRD -5500 cont1‘o]le1'. If the hosts are patt
`of a \r'1\-'IS \»"AXC111st.e1'TM they can share access to all of the 1'eduI1dancy groups.
`
`H05!
`
`H05!
`
`H05!
`
`H05!
`
`F'°““’ "2 A '““'‘”‘°‘““‘’ °’‘‘'''“'’'‘’
`
`Ex. 1003 (CRD-5500 Manual) at 1-2 — 1-3
`
`(cited in Paper 1 (-1207), Petition, pp. 13, 17, 21; Ex. 1010, Chase DecI., pp. 21-22, 49).
`
`
`
`Smith Discloses a Tachyon Controller Chip that Supports Fibre Channel
`
`Tachyon High-Level Design Goals
`
` V.
`-3.1)” 19-}.
`.,.;,:|_‘ I.“ '1
`_._.‘i,.|V
`fr,"-‘.‘_" .
`,'.
`._._./.p
`V.
`._
`--
`...‘,;.
`‘,.
`\
`V
`V
`I
`Frmrn the begirulmg of the lnroject, Tzwliyorl desigriers created SCSIl‘12irdwz1re assists to support. SCSI initiator ll‘ilIl.Stl(_‘.li.(.)Il.S‘-.
`These liz.u'clw2u'e assists included special queuing zuid rsacliirig. Elzlrly in the desigrl, 'I':;1cl1yoI1 only supported SCSI initiator
`functionality with its SCSI l'iardware assists. It beczune evident froiu czustolner feedback. however. t1iatTac1i_yo11n1ust
`support SCSI target functionality as well. so SCSI target fLlIlC[i(_l.'IlZ1]i[y was added to Tachyon SCSI hardware assists.
`
`Tachyon Feature Set
`
`To provide support for customer mass storage. applications, "l’acl1yo11:
`
`9 Supports up to 16384 Concurrent SCSI I/O transactions.
`
`0 Can be programmed to function as either an initia«tor or a target.
`
`
`Ex. 1005 (Smith) at 4 (cited in Paper 1 (-1207), Petition, pp.
`
`15-17, 20-21; Ex. 1010, Chase DecI., pp. 19, 49).
`
`
`
`Combination of CRD-5500 User Manual and Smith
`
`Interface modules of the CRD-5500 User Manual adapted with the Tachyon
`
`functionality of Smith
`
`Chase DecI., p. 22).
`
`
`
`Ex. 1010 (Chase Decl.) at p. 22 (colors added)
`
`(cited in Paper 1, Petition, pp. 17-18; Ex. 1010,
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Arguments Fail
`
`° Patent Owner argues that the combination does not render the claims
`
`obvious because it maps between host channels and storage, not
`
`between hosts and storage
`
`° This argument fails:
`
`» Patent Owner's construction is contrary to broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation
`
`> CRD-5500 User Manual teaches mapping to particular hosts
`
`> CRD-5500 User Manual embodiment shows mapping to particular
`
`hosts
`
`» Patent Owner and its expert acknowledge that the CRD-5500 User
`
`ManuaI’s embodiment maps to particular hosts
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Construction ls Contrary
`to Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`°
`
`"Mapping” and “access controls” are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation
`
`> Specification does not place restrictions on how to map to hosts
`
`Paper 45 (-1207), Pet. Reply, p. 5;
`
`Ex. 1001, ’147 Patent, 4:26-29.
`
`> Contrary to Patent Owner's position in District Court that "map” need only
`
`contain “a representation of devices on each side of the storage router”
`
`Paper 29 (-1207), P0 Resp., p. 2.
`
`
`
`The CRD-5500 User Manual Teaches Mapping To Particular Hosts
`
`1.2 Flexible RAID Set Configuration
`
`In addition to its flexible hardware design, the CRD-5500's firmware offers the user the flexibility to
`
`configure RAID sets in many different ways:
`
`
`J13» <.;:u;h |:u..::i..
`
`
`
`
`
`|.|,i?‘.:~:
`
`i;:.> v.li.i:'i“;"<;iwi;
`
`im-—si:.*;, 0“ r‘».‘.=;LZ<::<: at
`
`'l'E1:..: cu:ii;“«:H:.::’.:—:
`
`l|v.;.;’,
`
`l',l’,J3‘~—_‘
`
`I“/":1"_,'iL)1i,ll;‘;
`
`
`”1;':L’...L“'1)
`
`m:~_1¥-». -1;:
`
`ii. 1;»::-..;.-M:
`
`:.; La;
`
`
`"»*=.1': $9‘.
`'
`)9 .:s:_;i.:: «tlii":;"=t;rti_l-,~/
`
`"r":=u I‘-_'_u!<‘a: Hm; .'~s:.w,i_:,;
`
`rt;~'.itLnd2tt:~1;y'
`
`;;r«;:!,sL?..
`
`s;w:,>=.x\.r' Imp mi l:A.i.i"i-“‘y:‘l":;"’-—.|:
`
`;'t::«_LLL:id:;ui~<,: f-,1’
`
`;;i‘uI.,.1;_: vi::i::J=~; :0 r_>:i':; buzz‘; bui: u~:_.>‘.c
`
`i;~'_>
`
`'r.1Il<_J'.Eh'r_:1'.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003 (CRD-5500 Manual) at 1-1
`
`(cited in Paper 1, Petition, pp. 13-14).
`
`
`
`The CRD-5500 User Manual Embodiment Shows Mapping To Particular Hosts
`
`
`
`Figure 1-2 shows how vou can connect. as man 1-‘ as four hosts to the CRD-5500.
`This makes it possible
`
`for hosts 1'u1111j11g incompatible operating systems to use the same CRD -5500 cont1‘o]le1'. If the hosts are patt
`of a \r'1\-'IS \»"AXC111st.e1'TM they can share access to all of the redutldancy groups.
`
`"'0“'° ‘-23 A "'“"”‘°5“"0 9*-""""°
`
`Ex. 1003 (CRD-5500 Manual) at 1-2 — 1-3
`
`(cited in Paper 1 (-1207), Petition, pp. 13, 17, 21).
`
`
`
`The CRD-5500 User Manual Embodiment Shows Mapping To Particular Hosts
`
`'1|‘i1c: (.Z’RLi)‘-6500 pc1r111iil;s tlrxc M.) modiuilcs in s:loi.5 1, 2, a11dJ..’v” to be co1'1tig;u«1'cd. as. host or disk cilmlxlcl lnodulcs.
`'1i‘li1c Cizuzizwzeel 5s'ee£tz"ng.s: scrcczmm is who place. to conflgurc thes.c1nod.u1lc:s. Use the up a11d.do.w11 arrow keys to
`maumouvcr to tho clmunnci you wish to comligurc and prcss lE'.ntcr. "linen Lust: the amrow keys to toggle: bet.wcc11
`
`host
`
`disk. Press Enter again to salve your scicctiou. Chaumcl 0 is always. at hosrfl chmmcl and channels 4
`
`Itlimmlgh 6 arc: aliw-zrys diisk c.i1~:n1nc:ls., so the 111o11itfor'w1tility' will restrict access to fl1e.se.f'1ie.lds.
`
`Munitux ULiLiLy
`CHANNEL SETTINGS
`
`02 09-96
`13:20:49
`
`¢.—-—---~ —-—v~ —-— +.—-- —.—:—.—-~—.—.—.~ —-~»f.-v- — —-—r~-— — — ~--‘—.—.—.—.—.—.—v— — 9
`
`Channel Mofiule Type Mbdwle Description
`
`
`IL
`HOST‘
`6
`m ffezen i.a'Jl
`HOST‘
`16~3iL Sing1e—Ended
`2
`DISK
`16~3it Sing1e—Ended
`3
`Disk
`16. —;-3uit. Single End.'e.d
`4
`DISK
`16-Bit Single Ended
`5
`DISK
`16 Bit Single Ended
`6
`DISK
`16 Hit Single En&ed
`!
`DISK
`16—3it Single—Ended
`8
`r ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ e ——————————— - — Q ———————————————————— - — 1
`
`UP ARRDW: CURSOR UP fl EOWN'ARROW: CURSOR DOWN [ ENTER: SELECT'H CfRL—Z: EXIT
`
`Ex. 1003 (CRD-5500 Manual) at 4-5
`
`(cited in Paper 1 (-1207), Petition, pp. 13-14, 21).
`
`
`
`The CRD-5500 User Manual Embodiment Shows Mapping To Particular Hosts
`
`"l"11uis:sc1re.c1n may be uscd. to map: LUN|szo1rm each host cl1ua1:me1| to a pa11icula1r red11i11dJamc.y group. 01‘ you may
`
`prevent a 1rc‘d|umda1mey grolup fmm appearing on a. ho st clmanlmefl. Tlmvs, for exanlple, you may map redundancy
`
`group 1 to ]L.U'N 5 on host c]'n-annxel 0 and11:l1:e same: 1'ed1mdJam1cy group to: LUN 12 on hast channel 1. Or’ you
`may make l"€dI1.')I’ldIJI10.‘;_'” glrmup 8 available on LUN 4 an host chaxmel 0' and block access to it m1110s't.cl1an11el
`ll.
`
`
`
`02-09-96
`13:14:00
`
`+— —v———o——-———*—-—-—————-———-———-—-—-———+
`
`+‘—-—n————-—-—-—-—+————————‘———————-——-—+
`
`I Redundancy‘ G'-roup I
`Rus.t. LUNI
`4,--.--_-._---,,v--._---_---.--_-.-.---+
`0
`U
`1
`1
`2
`-
`3
`-
`4
`5
`5
`-
`SC
`6
`T
`7
`3
`8
`9
`9
`ID
`19
`"NJ
`'11.
`1|?‘
`'2’.
`13
`13
`TIA
`14:
`TIE
`15
`.I+.——.-__--___+.———-—_-.—.————_—._.___+
`
`I Host LUN I Redunda-ncy Group
`+_-------.-.-+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . --.,
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`Z0
`Z0
`Z1
`21
`Z2‘
`22
`7.‘3‘~
`213»
`24
`24
`Z5
`25
`Z6
`26
`27
`217
`753
`218$
`29
`29
`30
`I0
`3]
`:91.
`+I _ _ — — — —. _ —. —.—.,. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _‘ — _ — - — - — — --4.
`
`Rfififlw KEYS: MUVE CURSOR I N: NEXT CH I 9: PREV OH I ENTER: SELRET I CTPL-Z: EXIT
`
`Ex. 1003 (CRD-5500 Manual) at 4-5
`
`(cited in Paper 1 (-1207), Petition, pp. 13-14, 20-22).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner And Its Expert Acknowledge That CRD-5500 Embodiment
`
`Maps To Particular Hosts
`
`visible to one host but not another” is misplaced Reading the sentence in the context
`
`of the CRD-5500 Manual as a whole, it is clear that it is referring to .a case in
`
`which the hosts are on different channels, such as shown in Figure l-2 (entitled “A
`
`mnlti-hosting example”), wherein each of four hosts is connected to a separate host
`
`channel. Ex. 1004, at 1-2. In this example, because there is only one host per
`
`channel, mapping a redundancy group to one channel, but not another, will have
`
`the effect that the hosts connected to the different channels would necessarily have
`
`access to different redundancy groups. Lew ‘H 221. The Host LUN Mapping
`
`Petitioners’ hypothetical system would operate in the same way. Even in the
`
`Patent Owner's Response (Paper 29 (-1207)) at 44-45.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner And Its Expert Acknowledge That CRD-5500 Embodiment
`
`Maps To Particular Hosts
`
`Q.
`
`In the circumstance where there is only a single host device on a fibre
`
`channel, is the fibre channel ID sufficient to identify the host device?
`
`.>D.>D?>
`
`.
`
`.
`
`So you're switching now to the host side of the --
`
`(BY MR. GARDELLA) Correct.
`
`—— map?
`
`(BY MR. GARDELLA) Correct.
`
`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 (July 15, 2015 Levy Dep.) at 57:10-24 (objections omitted)
`
`(cited in Paper 45 (-1207), Pet. Reply, p. 3).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner And Its Expert Acknowledge That CRD-5500 Embodiment Maps To Particular Hosts
`
`Q. But you would agree that the host interface ID is sufficient to ensure in
`
`this embodiment that transmissions are sent to the proper hosts?
`
`A-We", this
`interface ID does get the response sent back on the proper interface.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1218 (July 15, 2015 Levy Dep.) at 95:13-22 (objections omitted)
`
`(cited in Paper 45 (-1207), Pet. Reply, p. 19).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Arguments Fail
`
`° Patent Owner argues that those of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`have combined the CRD-5500 User Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet, and
`
`Smith, because the references are incompatible
`
`° This argument fails:
`
`> Patent Owner's argument is impermissible bodily incorporation
`
`In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
`
`(cited in Paper 45 (-1207), Pet. Reply, pp. 7-8).
`
`» The references provide rationale to adapt CRD-5500 to include Fibre
`
`Channel, which show that those of ordinary skill could have and would
`
`have combined the teachings of the references
`
`
`
`Rationale to Combine CRD-5500 User Manual and Smith
`
`- The CRD-5500 was "designed to support tomorrow's high speed serial
`
`interfaces such as Fiberchannel (FCAL)”
`
`Ex. 1004 (CRD-5500 Datasheet) at 1
`
`(cited in Paper 1 (-1207), Petition, pp. 13, 16).
`
`o The CRD-5500 allows users ”to easily add new interfaces or more
`
`powerful modules as they become available”
`
`Ex. 1004 (CRD-5500 Datasheet) at 2
`
`(cited in Paper 1 (-1207), Petition, p. 17).
`
`- One of ordinary skill would have added Fibre Channel to the CRD-5500
`
`to take advantage of Fibre Channel's well known benefits, such as
`
`storage at higher speeds and greater distances than SCSI
`
`(cited in Ex. 1010, Chase DecI., pp. 22-23, 69).
`
`Ex. 1005 (Smith) at 1, 3
`
`
`
`Rationale to Combine CRD-5500 User Manual and Smith
`
`"Key storage issues for enterprise customers include their current and future
`
`needs for distributed storage in conjunction with improved network storage
`
`management; increased connectivity and capacity, plus dynamic expansion
`
`capabilities; high performance, availability, and reliability; investment protection;
`
`and reduced cost of ownership.
`
`Inherent I/O and physical limitations, however, now prevent SCSI technology from
`
`satisfying the expanding needs of enterprise storage.
`
`Fibre Channel techno|ogy...provides the means to satisfy all the enterprise
`
`storage needs identified above.”
`
`Ex. 1028 (Compaq Technology Brief) at 3, 8
`
`(cited in Ex. 1010, Chase Decl., p. 21).
`
`
`
`Bergsten in View of Hirai
`
`’035 Patent Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-12, 14
`
`’147 Patent Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-11, 13-39
`
`19
`
`
`
`Bergsten Teaches Mapping Hosts to Storage Devices
`
`As mentioned above, a storage controller according to the
`present
`invention uses virtual-to-real device. mapping to
`provide transparency of 1/0 operations to the host
`computers, as will now be described. A single host (Virtual)
`address may map to a single physical address, or, to improve
`performance, the storage. controller may map a single host
`address to multiple pl1_\’SlCt1l addresses. which i11a_v be dis-
`tributed ainoiig multiple MSDs located in dillereiit storage
`arrays. The storage controller 3 maps a host address to one
`or more physical addresses using a two-part process that is
`transparent to all hosts. Specificall_v, a host address received
`from a host
`is first mapped to a logical address, and the
`logical address is then mapped to a physical (real) address in
`one or more MSDs.
`
`The storage controller maintains and uses a tree structure
`such as that illustrated in FIG. 8 to map the host interface ID
`and block number to a logical device. The tree structure 40
`
`Ex. 1007 (Bergsten) at 8:62-9:8, 9:21-23
`
`(cited in Petition (-1207), pp. 30, 36, 51);
`
`Ex. 1010, Chase Decl., pp. 80-81, 111).
`
`
`
`Hirai Teaches Access Controls
`
`Partition 1
`
`Partition 2
`
`Partition 3
`
`RWCX
`RWCX
`RWCX
`
`Personal con uter 3
`Personal con met 1
`Pe1sonal co met 3 _
`Pelsonal con uter 1 _
`
`0 (
`
`R: Readable. W: Writable. C: Creatable. X: Executable)
`Figure 3
`
`Ex. 1008 (Hirai) at 6 (cited in Paper 1, Petition,
`
`p. 43; Ex. 1010, Chase DecI., pp. 142, 168).
`
`21
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Arguments Fail
`
`° Patent Owner argues that the combination Bergsten and Hirai would
`
`not have been obvious, because Hirai utilizes ”fi|e system-based”
`
`access controls and not b|ock—|eve| access controls
`
`° This argument fails:
`
`> Bergsten teaches allowing access using NLLBPs, and it was within the
`
`ordinary skill of those in the art to adapt Bergsten to include Hirai’s
`
`access controls
`
`See Paper 1 (-1207), Petition, at pp. 44-46;
`
`Ex. 1010, Chase DecI., 111] 249-50.
`
`
`
`Bergsten in View of Hirai Teaches Controlling Access Using NLLBPs
`
`° Bergsten allows access to storage devices using NLLBPs
`
`ljach of the storage controllers also provides virt.uali'/.od
`data access and emulation, as mentioned above. A local
`storage controller will emulate its local storage array from
`the V'lC\V'pOl1][ of its local host computer s_\»~'stcm; similarly.
`thc local storagc coutrollcr will cmulatc its
`local host
`computer s_\-«'stem from the \-‘iewpoiut ol‘
`its local storage
`_g"LI_c<lr_ 7',-*rr:u_laiir_,rn 1.:
`’
`it. '.Da_r‘£., :2 ‘I;i.';'__r,t2',
`it
`7;; -";D_'_F_I_'_t_l,lI_lC:-'llDI_ "
`
`far :l-*.-..'ta r:omm‘tt:ii:'%ai.;o:i
`
`'.:‘
`
`protocols and standards. such as scrial SCSI. Fiber Clianncl.
`or ESCON.
`
`Ex. 1007 (Bergsten) at 5:65—6:9
`
`(cited in Paper 1 (-1207), Petition, p. 44).
`
`° Those of ordinary skill would have adapted Bergsten's map, which uses
`
`NLLBPs, in view of Hirai’s teaching of access controls
`
`Ex. 1010 (Chase Decl.) T/1] 249-50;
`
`Ex. 2055 (Chase Dep.) at 328:20-22
`
`(cited in Paper 29 (-1207), Patent Owner's Resp., p. 11).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Arguments Fail
`
`° Patent Owner argues that Bergsten does not teach the claimed ”map,”
`
`because the Host Interface ID in Bergsten’s map identifies the host
`
`interface and not the host
`
`° This argument fails:
`
`> Patent Owner's construction is contrary to the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation
`
`» Bergsten teaches mapping to particular hosts
`
`» Bergsten shows embodiments that map to particular hosts
`
`» Parties’ experts agree that the embodiment maps to particular hosts
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Construction ls Contrary
`to Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`°
`
`"Mapping” and “access controls” are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation
`
`> Specification does not place restrictions on how to map to hosts
`
`Paper 45 (-1207), Pet. Reply, p. 5;
`
`Ex. 1001, ’147 Patent, 4:26-29.
`
`> Contrary to Patent Owner's position in District Court that "map” need only
`
`contain “a representation of devices on each side of the storage router”
`
`Paper 29 (-1207), P0 Resp., p. 2.
`
`
`
`Bergsten Teaches Mapping to Particular Hosts
`
`FIG. 7 illustrates the process of mapping a virtual address
`to a logical address. Because a given storage controller may
`aths
`
`to the same host,
`
` have an interface with more than one host or multi le
`
`
`path with which the access re uest is associated. Hence, in
`stepmm
`
`and a host (memory) block number. In step 702, the storage
`controller determines Whether the host device ID and block
`
`or redundant
`
`number map exactly to a logical device. This determination
`can be made by checking the status of a single bit repre-
`senting Whether or not the mapping is exact.
`
`see Ex. 1010 (Chase DecI.), pp. 174-75 (citing Fig. 7).
`
`Ex. 1007 (Bergsten) at 9:8-20;
`
`
`
`Parties’ Experts Agree that Bergsten Maps to Particular Hosts
`
`Q.
`
`In the circumstance where there is only a single host device on a fibre
`
`channel, is the fibre channel ID sufficient to identify the host device?
`
`.>D.>D?>
`
`.
`
`.
`
`So you're switching now to the host side of the --
`
`(BY MR. GARDELLA) Correct.
`
`—— map?
`
`(BY MR. GARDELLA) Correct.
`
`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 (July 15, 2015 Levy Dep.) at 57:10-24 (objections omitted)
`
`(cited in Paper 45 (-1207), Pet. Reply, p. 3).
`
`
`
`Parties’ Experts Agree that Bergsten Maps to Particular Hosts
`
`Q. But you would agree that the host interface ID is sufficient to ensure in
`
`this embodiment that transmissions are sent to the proper hosts?
`
`A. Well, as in the CRD—5500 where there is a channel identifier, this
`
`interface ID does get the response sent back on the proper interface.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1218 (July 15, 2015 Levy Dep.) at 95:13-22 (objections omitted)
`
`(cited in Paper 45 (-1207), Pet. Reply, p. 19).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Arguments Fail
`
`° Patent Owner argues that the combination could not provide access
`
`controls because the emulation drivers of Bergsten would remove host
`
`identity information before reaching the map
`
`° This argument fails:
`
`» Patent Owner cites no evidence from Bergsten
`
`Patent Owner's Resp. (Paper 29 (-1207)), pp. 16, 34;
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy DecI.), pp. 77, 112.
`
`> Bergsten does not teach that host identifying information is discarded
`
`
`
`Bergsten Does Not Teach that Host Identifying Information Is Discarded
`
`
`
`
`INPUT = HOST
`INTERFACE ID. HOST
`BLOCK NUMBER
`
`701
`
`HOST DEVICE MAPS
`YES
`
`EXACTLY TO LOGICAL
`DEVICE?
`
`
`
`N0
`
`POINT TO TOP
`ELEMENT IN TREE
`
`
`
`COMPARE BLOCK
` POINT AT ELEMENT TO
`THE LEFT OF THIS
`NUMBER TO TREE
`
`ELEMENT
`LEMENT RANG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OUTPUT = LOGICAL
`DEVICE ID, LOGICAL
`BLOCK NUMBER
`
`POINT AT ELEMENT TO
`
`THE RIGHT OF THIS
`
`ELEMENT
`
`
`Ex. 1007 (Bergsten) Fig. 7 (cited by Paper 1 (-1207),
`
`Petition, p. 51); Ex. 1010 (Chase DecI.), TH] 299, 313.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Arguments Fail
`
`° Patent Owner argues that those of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`have combined Bergsten with the access controls of Hirai because the
`
`purpose of Bergsten is to provide “open access” to ’’all’’ storage
`
`° This argument fails:
`
`» Bergsten suggests access controls
`
`> The Board was correct in finding that providing access to all storage
`
`does not conflict with portions of storage being restricted
`
`
`
`Bergsten Suggests Access Controls
`
`
`
`Write protection can
`be achieved by configuring the storage controller appropri-
`ately at set-up time or by inputting a write protect command
`to the storage controller from a host computer.
`
`Ex. 1007 (Bergsten) at 15:39-47
`
`(cited in Paper 1 (-1207), Petition, p. 45).
`
`
`
`Those of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`would Have Combined Bergsten and Hirai
`
`050-) In the combined svstcm~—
`
`‘ The access controls would be based upon logical addressing. Moreover,
`
`this addition can interopcrate with other elements of Bergsten. For example, by
`
`integrating the access controls into the logical addressing mechanism, the access
`
`rights to data are identical for each copy of the data across all of the controllers
`
`linked in a network as described by Bergsten. In this manner, Bergsten could retain
`
`its goal of having multiple copies of data accessible to multiple host computer
`
`systems at different locations while managing data integrity based upon an
`
`administratively managed access rights plan. See id. at 3:4-8.
`
`Ex. 1010 (Chase Decl.) 1] 250.
`
`
`
`The Board Was Correct in Finding that Providing Access to All Storage Does Not Conflict with Portions of Storage Being Restricted
`
`Patent Owner argues that the “purpose of Bergsren is to provide a
`
`system in which all hosts have the same access to all storage.“ Prelim.
`
`Resp. 50-51 (citing Ex. 1007. Abstract. 1:39-42. 3:1—-4. 4:'i—9. 4:39-41.
`
`4:66-5:22). Pate11t Owner. thus. argues that Petitioners cannot show a
`
`reasonable likelihood of success. Id. at 51. After consideiing Patent
`
`0wner‘s citations toBergsten-—
`
`Institution Decision (Paper 13 (-00197 )) at 13.
`
`
`
`Kikuchi in View of Bergsten
`
`’147 Patent Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-11, 13-39
`
`35
`
`
`
`Kikuchi Teaches Access Controls to a Single Storage Device
`
`The technique for determining
`for example involve the
`
`address registration unit 104 and
`
`Alternatively,
`
`the host addresses of those host
`
`Ex. 1006 (Kikuchi) at 4:35-44 (cited in Paper 1 (-1207), Petition, p. 28).
`
`
`
`Kikuchi Teaches Access Controls to a Single Storage Device
`
`
`
`H
`7'17‘/iii‘! ma iI’\’/'7i‘i.i"JI‘I
`
`:1 host device from the host
`;1pp;11';1111s
`is able to idenli1'_\='
`address imhcdded within the command sent from the ["1051
`
`device. 1\-"Io1'eo\-'e1' hecaiise :1 partition o[TseI
`\':1i1lC is stored for each [1051 device,
`'
`
`information
`
`‘
`
`:I,b_|<; to :».L|r_;-T331-';
`2:, chi"-;;r-';:i‘£ —di-Ll: *,u2r'£;'ii:;
`_
`("omeqiieiilly-', 21 single disk appamliis can essentially appeal‘
`as 21 diffe1'enI disk to each host device, enabling the efficienl
`llsélgd of modern large \-'o1ume disk apparaliis.
`
`Ex. 1006 (Kikuchi) at 8:37-45 (cited in Paper 1 (-1207),
`
`Petition, pp. 36, 38; Ex. 1010, Chase DecI., pp. 108-09).
`
`
`
`Bergsten Teaches Virtual Storage Mapping to Multiple Storage Devices
`
`
`
`as will now he LlU:~'CI'll)cLl. /\ single host (virtual)
`_
`aLlLln:ssn'1a_y map lo a single pl1ysical address, or. to improvc
`pcrl‘o1'I11ancc, lhc storage controller may map a sillglc hosl
`aclclrcss lo mulliplc physical aclclrusscs, which may he (lis-
`lrihulcd among mulliplc MS|)s located in clillcrcnl sl()ra,«__§c
`arrays. The storage controller 3 maps a host address to one
`or more physical addresses usin a two- wart wmccss that is
`trans marem to all hosts. ; "
`
`'
`
`Ex. 1007 (Bergsten) 8:62—9:8 (cited in Paper 1 (-1207), Petition,
`
`pp. 36, 49; Ex. 1010, Chase DecI., pp. 80-81, 89-90, 111).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Arguments Fail
`
`° Patent Owner argues that Kikuchi does not provide a map or access
`
`controls, because the hosts in Kikuchi have full access to the disk
`
`° This argument fails:
`
`> Patent Owner improperly attacks Kikuchi individually, but Petitioners’
`
`proposed combination modifies Kikuchi in light of Bergsten’s teaching
`
`of virtual storage
`
`» Kikuchi teaches mapping and access controls
`
`
`
`Kikuchi in View of Bergsten Provides Mapping and Access Controls
`
`- Patent Owner impermissibly attacks Kikuchi individually
`
`Patent Owners Response (Paper 29 (—1207)), pp. 26-28; In re Keller; 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)
`
`(cited in Paper 45 (-1207), Pet. Reply, p. 16).
`
`- Prof. Chase confirms that Kikuchi would have been adapted in view of
`
`Bergsten’s teaching of virtual storage mapping
`
`Ex. 1010 (Chase Decl.) 11144;
`
`Ex. 1007 (Bergsten) at 8:62-9:8
`
`(cited in Paper 1 (-1207), Petition, pp. 36, 49).
`
`
`
`KikuchiTeaches Mapping and Access Controls
`
`o ”The technique for determining access authorization could for example involve the
`
`registration of the host addresses of those host devices for which access is authorized in
`
`the address registration unit 104 and comparison of these address with the host
`
`address extracted from each command, with authorization being given in the case of a
`
`matching address.”
`
`Ex. 1006 (Kikuchi) at 4:35-44
`
`(cited in Paper 1 (-1207), Petition, p. 28).
`
`- "With the invention of the fourth apparatus, the disk apparatus is able to identify a host
`
`device from the host address imbedded within the command sent from the host device.
`
`Moreover because a partition offset information value is stored for each host device,
`
`the disk apparatus is able to allocate a different disk partition to each host device.
`
`Consequently, a single disk apparatus can essentially appear as a different disk to each
`
`host device, enabling the efficient usage of modern large volume disk apparatus.”
`
`Ex. 1006 (Kikuchi) at 8:37-45
`
`(cited in Paper 1 (-1207), Petition, pp. 36, 38).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Arguments Fail
`
`° Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill would not have
`
`combined Kikuchi and Bergsten because the combination is ’’complex’’
`
`and changes Kikuchi’s "simp|e” correlation scheme
`
`° This argument fails:
`
`» Those of ordinary skill would have had rationale to combine the
`
`teachings of the references
`
`> Prof. Chase explains that the combination was within the ordinary skill
`
`of those in the art, and Patent Owner provides no evidence to the
`
`contrary
`
`
`
`Rationale to Combine Kikuchi with Bergsten
`
`Prof. Chase confirms that using Bergsten’s virtual storage mapping would
`
`allow Kikuchi advantageously to use multiple disks
`
`- Increase storage capacity
`
`- Increase storage address range
`
`- Increase flexibility and ease of administration (can add or modify)
`
`Ex. 1010 (Chase Decl.) 1] 146.
`
`
`
`The Combination of Kikuchi and Bergsten Was Within the Ordinary Skill Of
`
`those in the Art at the Time
`
`- Prof. Chase explains that tables and trees were interchangeable for
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art
`
`Ex. 1010 (Chase Decl.) 1] 145.
`
`- Patent Owner's expert does not dispute this
`
`Q. Does your declaration provide any testimony to the effect that the
`
`combination of Kikuchi and Bergsten proposed by Dr. Chase would be
`
`beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art?
`
`A.
`
`I don't believe it has any testimony to that effect.
`
`Ex. 1218 (July 15, 2015 Levy Dep.) at 103:16-21
`
`(cited in Paper 45 (-1207), Pet. Reply, p. 16).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Arguments Fail
`
`° Patent Owner argues that the combination could not provide access
`
`controls because the emulation drivers of Bergsten would remove
`
`Kikuchit host identity information before reaching the map
`
`° This argument fails:
`
`» Patent Owner cites no evidence from Bergsten
`
`Patent Owners Resp. (Paper 29 (-1207)), pp. 16, 34;
`
`Ex. 2053 (Levy DecI.), pp. 77, 112.
`
`> Bergsten does not teach that host identifying information is discarded
`
`
`
`Bergsten Does Not Teach that Host Identifying Information Is Discarded
`
`com111a11ds from the host device. (Ex. 1006 at //*1cAb.strac'l) The host devices can
`
`be connected, for example, Via a Fibre Channel or SCSI transport medium to the
`
`control device and the control device is, in turn, connected to a storage unit Via, for
`
`example, a FC or SCSI transport medium. (Id at 1:31-36; see also id. at 5:3 7-39)
`
`Kikuchi executes access control by extracting a host address from each host device
`
`command and determining whether the address is registered in an address
`
`registration unit. (Id. at 4:35-44; see also id. at 5:3-6)
`
`Paper 1 (-1207), Petition, p. 28 (discussing Kikuchi).
`
`
`
`Kikuchi Is Prior Art
`
`- Kikuchi was filed on August 18, 1997, more than five months before
`
`Patent Owner filed on December 31, 1997
`
`- Patent Owner bears the burden of proving prior invention, which
`
`requires continuous diligence to reduce the invention to practice during
`
`the critical period
`
`Oracle Corp. v. Click—to—CaIl Tech. L. P., No. IPR2013—00312, Paper 52 at 15 (PTAB Oct. 28, 2014)
`
`(cited in Paper 45 (-1207), Pet. Reply, pp. 14-15).
`
`- Diligence cannot be shown when the Patent Owner chooses to delay
`
`testing of the invention for business reasons
`
`Id.; Naber v. Cricchi, 567 F.2d 382, 385 (Cust. & Pat. App. 1977)
`
`(cited in Paper 45 (-1207), Pet. Reply, p. 11).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Cannot Show Diligence
`
`- During the critical period, Patent Owner worked exclusively on a product
`
`— the Verrazano bridge - that did not embody the invention (it lacked
`access co ntr0IS)
`Patent Owner's Response (Paper 29 (-1207)) at 23-24
`
`- During the critical period, Patent Owner admits there were roughly 5
`
`Verrazano bridge prototypes
`
`Ex. 1220 (Middleton Dep.) at 58
`
`(cited in Paper 45 (-1207), Pet. Reply, p. 12).
`
`- Patent Owner admits it could have included access controls in the
`
`Verrazano bridge prototypes
`
`Ex. 1220 (Middleton Dep.) at 63-64, 70-72
`
`(cited in Paper 45 (-1207), Pet. Reply, pp. 12-13).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Cannot Show Diligence
`
`Q. The brid e software which was under test on the approximately five
`
`hincluded certain functionality. Correct?
`
`
`
`A. Correct.
`
`0» And that functionalitv—
`if the software team had chosen to include that functionality in that
`
`build of the software?
`
`Q. Correct?
`
`Q.
`
`Is that fair to say?
`
`A:
`
`Ex. 1220 (Middleton Dep.) at 63:17-64:4 (objection omitted)
`
`(cited in Paper 45 (-1207), Pet. Reply, p. 12).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Cannot Show Diligence
`
`- Oct. 20-Nov. 24, 1997: Patent Owner cites no evidence of diligence at all
`
`Patent Owners Response (Paper 29 (—1207)) at p.24
`
`(citing Ex. 2311 (purported chronoIogy)).
`
`- Nov. 25-Dec. 31, 1997: only minimal revisions to patent application
`
`Ex. 1228 (redline comparing July 11, 1997 draft to Dec. 31, 1997 draft)
`
`(cited in Paper 45, Pet. Reply, p.14).
`
`
`
`Kikuchi in View of Bergsten
`
`f""”""°”""""""’°""""”°“
`5
`Krkucm
`i
`i Hast Dan‘:-.e: Interface
`
`Verificmfiam
`Unit
`
`Command
`Imerprelaflion and
`Ebczecuflon Unit
`
`—
`
`
`
`
`
`Bergslemmncdiilfied
`Address Oflflsest
`llmnfummaticn
`Comenrsinn Umil
`
`Bergsten-mmdifiad
`Actwll Palrtiflinnu
`Address
`Comma-Irsfimrn Unfit
`
`Bergsiem
`Communication
`Dmelrs
`
`
`
`Secondary Considerations of Non-obviousness
`
`52
`
`
`
`No Evidence of Nexus
`
`- Commercial Success
`
`» No evidence that products embodied subject patents
`
`— E.g., no evidence that bridges and routers provided claimed ”mapping”
`
`Ex. 2043 (Bianchi DecI.); Ex. 1221 (Bianchi Dep.) at p.33-35
`
`(cited in See Paper 45, Pet. Reply, p. 23).
`
`- Licensing
`
`» No evidence that license payments made for freedom to make or sell
`
`products that embody the subject patents
`
`> Licensed other patents, products outside scope of ’147 patent
`
`— E.g., SCS|—to—FC outside scope of ’147 Patent, which requires FC—to—FC
`
`Ex. 1223 (Crane Dep.) at pp. 50-53, 117-19
`
`(cited in Paper 45, Pet. Reply, p. 24).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Evidence Is Insufficient to Show Nonobviousness
`
`- Long-Fe|t Need
`
`» No evidence that others failed to solve need
`
`» Need recognized and solved
`
`Ex. 1004 (CRD-5500 Data Sheet) at 1
`
`(cited in Paper 45, Pet. Reply, p. 25).
`
`- Commercial Success
`
`» No evidence that sales are due to patented feature, rather than other
`
`non—patented features, pricing, demand, etc.
`
`Ex. 1221 (Bianchi Dep.) at 108, 119
`
`(cited in Paper 45, Pet. Reply, p. 23).
`
`- Licensing
`
`» No evidence that licenses are due to patent, rather than threat of
`
`litigation or pending business transaction
`
`(cited in Paper 45, Pet. Reply, p. 24).
`
`Ex. 1223 at 169
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
