IPR2014-01197, Paper No.76
`IPR2014-01207, Paper No. 77
`IPR2014-01209, Paper No. 76
`November 30, 2015
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ORACLE CORP., NETAPP INC., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES
`CO., LTD., and DOT HILL SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`____________
`
`Held: October 30, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: NEIL T. POWELL, KRISTINA M. KALAN, J. JOHN
`LEE, and KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
` The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, October
`30, 2015, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, 9th Floor, Hearing Room
`D, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`IPR2014-01207, Paper No. 77
`IPR2014-01209, Paper No. 76
`November 30, 2015
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ORACLE CORP., NETAPP INC., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES
`CO., LTD., and DOT HILL SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`____________
`
`Held: October 30, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: NEIL T. POWELL, KRISTINA M. KALAN, J. JOHN
`LEE, and KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
` The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, October
`30, 2015, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, 9th Floor, Hearing Room
`D, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`JARED BOBROW, ESQUIRE
`AARON Y. HUANG, ESQUIRE
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, California 94065-1134
`
`GREG H. GARDELLA, ESQUIRE
`Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`
`KEITH A. RUTHERFORD, ESQUIRE
`JAMES H. HALL, ESQUIRE
`Blank & Rome, LLP
`717 Texas Avenue
`Suite 1400
`Houston, Texas 77002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE POWELL: Good afternoon. This is the oral
`hearing for three related cases, IPR2014-01197 which involves
`patent 6,425,035 B2; IPR2014-01207 which involves patent
`7,051,147 B2; and IPR2014-01209 which involves the same
`patent. IPR2015-00822 has been joined with IPR2014-01197.
`In the hearing room with me I have Judge Lee and
`Judge Cherry and joining us via video from Denver, we have
`Judge Kalan. Can counsel please state your names for the record.
`MR. GARDELLA: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`Greg Gardella on behalf of petitioners, Oracle and NetApp. I'm
`joined today by Jared Bobrow and Aaron Huang of the Weil
`Gotshal firm. Mr. Bobrow will be doing the presentation today.
`And with your permission, I'll approach with your copies of the
`demonstratives.
`JUDGE POWELL: Sure.
`MR. RUTHERFORD: Keith Rutherford again for the
`patent owner, Crossroads. Also in attendance is Steve Sprinkle,
`lead counsel. With me at counsel table, James Hall, and we have
`in the audience our CEO and COO of Crossroads. And may we
`also approach with our demonstratives?
`JUDGE POWELL: Sure. Okay. I'll start by addressing
`the joint list of objections to demonstrative exhibits. We have
`reviewed and considered them and we are going to allow both
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`parties to use any of their demonstrative exhibits in today's
`hearing. We will carefully consider which evidence and
`arguments have been properly presented as we prepare our final
`decisions in these cases.
`Consistent with the hearing order, each party will have
`60 minutes. Petitioners will present their case first and may
`reserve time for rebuttal. And then patent owner will respond to
`petitioner's presentation after which petitioners may use any
`remaining time to respond to patent owner's presentation.
`During your presentations you must identify each
`demonstrative exhibit clearly and specifically. You can refer to it
`by slide number or screen number or however else is appropriate.
`That's particularly important because Judge Kalan cannot see the
`projection screen here in the hearing room.
`And with that, do we have any questions before we
`start? Well, I'll yield the floor to petitioners.
`MR. BOBROW: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Jared
`Bobrow for the petitioners. With the Board's permission, I would
`like to reserve 25 minutes.
`JUDGE POWELL: Okay.
`MR. BOBROW: Thank you. Starting with slide 2 of
`our slide presentation, set forth there are the claims on which this
`trial is proceeding and the three obviousness combinations that
`are at issue. The CRD-5500 combination, the Bergsten/Hirai
`combination and the Kikuchi/Bergsten combination.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`Let me proceed first with the CRD-5500 combination, if
`I may. As the Board heard this morning, the CRD-5500 manual
`describes a storage system. That storage system includes a
`multiplicity of hosts on one side. It includes a transport medium.
`We have cables going to channels. We then have those channels,
`the I/O ports as part of the CRD-5500. And on the other side of
`that storage router, what we have are storage devices. The
`CRD-5500 manual also describes the functions of mapping and
`describes the function of access control resident in the
`CRD-5500.
`The only element missing from the CRD-5500 is an
`express statement of the use of fibre channel. That's the only
`thing we submit that is missing from the CRD-5500. The
`CRD-5500 data sheet, which is Exhibit 1004, states that the 5500
`itself was designed to include and be adapted for fibre channel
`functionality. So there's no dispute that the cards and the slots of
`the CRD-5500 were adapted for a fibre channel use.
`To provide the fibre channel element, we provide the
`Smith reference which discloses the Tachyon chip. And the
`Tachyon chip, it discloses, is used for SCSI encapsulation over
`fibre channel. The idea of the combination is including the
`Tachyon chip on the card of the CRD-5500 so that, as shown on
`slide 6 of our presentation, we have hosts, each one connected
`through the Tachyon I/O card that's in the CRD-5500 and we
`have storage on the other end.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`So that is the combination, that use. And the only
`argument, primary argument, I should say, on which the patent
`owner responds is to say that the combination is somehow
`deficient because the mapping in their view does not include a
`map of the host in some particular concrete, nearly immutable
`way, but instead only maps to channel ID.
`And let me address that in a couple of ways, if I may.
`The first way is as a matter of claim construction. Neither party
`proposed an express construction for the Board to adopt as it
`relates to this concept of mapping. But the District Court below
`certainly received from the patent owner and adopted at the
`patent owner's urging a construction of mapping that is quite
`broad in our view and certainly is -- at least meets the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard that is applicable here. What
`the patent owner said in District Court was that a map need only
`contain, quote, a representation of devices on each side of the
`storage router. Merely a representation.
`And if we can please call up the Levy declaration, the
`patent owner's expert, at page 27 in Exhibit 2053, this is the
`patent owner's expert's declaration. It sets forth the construction
`that the patent owner urged the District Court to adopt and which
`the District Court, in fact, adopted.
`And the breadth of this construction is substantially
`broader at District Court than the construction being urged now
`by the patent owner. Mapping, according to the patent owner in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`the District Court proceedings, simply is to create a path from a
`device on one side of the storage router to a device on the other
`side of the storage router, merely creating a path.
`A map contains a representation of devices on each side
`of the router, a representation. Not a specific identity, but a
`representation of the device. And it has a function. And the
`function of this representation is so that when a device on one
`side of the router, the storage router, wants to communicate with
`a device on the other side of the storage router, the storage router
`can connect the devices. That is the function. That is what
`makes an identification in the map sufficient. Does it perform
`this connection so that a device on one side can communicate
`with a device on the other?
`That's the District Court construction under the Phillips
`standard. Certainly this construction or something broader would
`need to be applicable here. And certainly, I think it's important
`under 35 USC § 301 for the Board to consider this proposed
`construction because in part, what Section 301, I submit, was
`designed to do was to prevent what may be going on here, which
`is the patent owner urging a broad construction in District Court
`and then trying to avoid invalidity or unpatentability at the Board
`by urging a narrower construction. And certainly a narrower
`construction is being adopted here.
`If we can then go back to the slide presentation and turn
`to slide 9, so in the first instance, Your Honors, I submit that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`under that broad construction there is no question but that the
`CRD-5500 meets that definition, that construction proposed by
`the patent owner below. It provides a representation of storage
`through the channel ID, number one. And number two, that
`channel is providing a pathway, and it is a specific pathway. And
`we can see that on slide 10.
`This is the embodiment on which the petitioners in this
`proceeding rely. And you can see that what the CRD-5500
`manual is stating quite expressly is that you can assign
`redundancy groups, meaning storage, to a particular host. So
`what the 5500 manual is saying is that you can use the channel ID
`in order to map to a particular host. So there's no question but
`that this channel ID is being used in the CRD-5500 and what it
`does is it maps to a particular host.
`What we can see in Figure 1-2 on slide 10 is that each
`host here is connected through a specific cable. In this case it
`will be a SCSI cable. And each one goes to a specific channel.
`Each one has its own channel. There's no mixing of the channels.
`Each host has its own channel. And as a result of having its own
`channel, the channel ID is in a one-to-one-to-one correspondence
`from the card to the SCSI cable to the host. And in that way that
`channel ID is not only mapping the channel ID, it is mapping the
`host. It's mapping the cable as well. It's mapping this entire
`pathway from the channel through this cable and to the host. And
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`in that way, that is how it is mapping to the particular device and
`maps the particular device.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Counsel, I just had a question. So I
`don't know if you were in the hearing room this morning. Were
`you?
`
`MR. BOBROW: I was.
`JUDGE CHERRY: And this morning the counsel
`articulated a combination where all four hosts were on a single
`fibre channel. Are you articulating a similar combination?
`MR. BOBROW: This is a different the combination.
`Our petition did not include that arbitrated loop that was being
`discussed. Our petition, and it's set forth at pages 13, 17, and 21,
`is relying on the Figure 1-2 embodiment. And that is the
`embodiment on which Professor Chase opined and determined
`that these were indeed obvious.
`JUDGE CHERRY: And you are not offering a theory
`based on the similar arbitrated loop physical address theory that
`was being offered by the morning petitioners?
`MR. BOBROW: That particular embodiment with the
`host on that arbitrated loop, we are not.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Okay.
`MR. BOBROW: So what we had, then, is this mapping
`from channel and we have the channel ID, and what the 5500
`says is that you are mapping to a particular host. On slides 12
`and 13, Your Honors looked at that this morning. I would like to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`go to slide 14 because what slide 14 shows is that the patent
`owner's expert even acknowledges that in this case where you
`have one channel and one host for that one channel, that there
`will be a sufficient identification of the host for mapping
`purposes. And that's from Dr. Levy's deposition, Exhibit 1218.
`And what he was asked about was whether a fibre channel ID
`was sufficient to identify the host. And what his answer was, was
`that all that's required in the map is an identifier that's sufficient
`to distinguish between multiple hosts on the first transport
`medium. That is the function and that is what is sufficient for
`mapping is to be able to distinguish.
`And certainly what we have here is more than sufficient
`to distinguish. If we have a channel ID, ID 0, it is connected only
`to the first host on the left. That is the only connection that it has.
`And therefore, this ID is sufficient to distinguish the host
`connected to Channel 0 from the host that's connected to
`Channel 1.
`Now, in addition to this channel ID disclosure, in
`addition to that but as an alternative, our petition also sets forth
`another basis on which this combination renders the claims
`invalid and unpatentable. And that alternative ground is that
`Professor Chase opined and the petition sets forth at our petition
`page 18, if we can call that up, the additional theory and the
`additional reason that this combination renders unpatentable the
`claims is that Professor Chase also opined that the host identity
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`that can be used as part of the mapping can actually come from
`the fibre channel header.
`So recall that in this combination the Smith Tachyon
`chip is providing that fibre channel functionality. So the idea is
`that when the host is communicating, it is sending a fibre channel
`packet. The fibre channel packet is going to have host ID
`information in it and that host ID information is resident in the
`packet.
`
`JUDGE LEE: Is the fibre channel header in a map
`somewhere?
`MR. BOBROW: That is the alternative embodiment.
`And that is what Professor Chase opined in his declaration, is that
`the fibre channel packet address or the channel ID, either one
`could be used was his point. And that's what we set forth --
`JUDGE LEE: I understand the testimony that the fibre
`channel header could be used to identify a particular host, but the
`claims require that a configuration be maintained that maps
`between a device and remote storage. So where is that
`configuration, that mapping using fibre channel headers, where is
`that in the -- where is that described in the prior art?
`MR. BOBROW: In the petition where it's described is
`that the Tachyon chip would pass the host device identity to the
`CRD-5500 controller processor. And so what Professor Chase
`opined was that the host identity, either from the FCP header or
`from the channel host module, could be forwarded on.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`Judge Lee, I agree completely that what the CRD-5500
`manual says is that it is using that channel ID. That's the first
`embodiment that we are relying upon for unpatentability. We
`wanted to simply point out that Professor Chase has opined and
`our petition advances the additional theory that essentially the
`CRD could be modified once the Tachyon chip is added to the
`combination to read the FCP host ID that can be stored in
`memory and then can be passed on and used as part of the map.
`I agree that that is not how the map is structured in the
`CRD-5500 manual. Professor Chase opines that would be an
`adaptation that one of ordinary skill in the art could do and would
`be within the skill level of one of ordinary skill.
`Now, if we can go back to the slide presentation,
`please --
`JUDGE LEE: Actually, before we move on from this
`slide, just taking a look at this figure, which is Figure 1-2 of the
`CRD manual, Mr. Rutherford for Crossroads this morning, he
`argued that in the combination proffered, at least in the petitions
`we discussed this morning that the proffered combination is
`properly understood to correspond each of the channels, 0, 1, 2
`and 3 in this figure to be corresponding to the controller element
`in the claim. Is that a proper understanding of how you view this
`combination?
`MR. BOBROW: Well, no, it's not. May I explain.
`Each of these channels is certainly associated with that interface
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`card that we set forth earlier. There's the I/O card which would
`now include in the combination the Tachyon chip. It will have
`some sort of an identifier and it will have the channel ID.
`I think where we differ is that the channel ID, as the
`CRD manual says, maps to a particular device and it describes
`that in connection with this embodiment saying you can assign
`redundancy groups to a particular host, and you do that by the
`channel ID.
`JUDGE LEE: I guess as I understand Mr. Rutherford's
`argument, if you are mapping to a host channel and a host
`channel really collapses down to be just the I/O card, the SCSI
`I/O card, that really you are mapping to the controller. And the
`controller is an element in the claim. And if it meant to claim
`mapping between the remote storage and a controller would have
`said that instead of saying mapping between the devices and the
`remote storage. So I think there is some importance to what
`exactly in your view is the controller and what is the device or the
`representation of the device in your combination?
`MR. BOBROW: So the controller, as I mentioned a
`moment ago, does correspond to the card. That would be the
`controller. And the device is the host in this situation, in this
`embodiment. And the express teaching of the CRD-5500 is that
`by mapping the channel in this configuration, you are also, also
`mapping to the host.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`A single number can represent more than one thing. It
`needn't be this is exclusively mapping this; this is only mapping
`that. We submit that what the channel ID is doing is mapping
`multiple things. You could say that it's mapping the channel but
`it is also certainly mapping the host. And it does so because
`there's a one-for-one correspondence between channel and host as
`shown in Figure 1-2. So the single number is mapping multiple
`components. Not just one.
`With that, if there are no further questions on the
`CRD-5500, I would move to the second combination, and that
`begins at slide 19. This is the Bergsten/Hirai combination.
`Now, the Bergsten patent is a patent that once again
`teaches and discloses nearly every element of the claims here.
`We have multiple hosts. We have connections through SCSI and
`through fibre channel from hosts to what amounts to a storage
`router. It says that we map the host interface ID and block
`number to a logical device. So we have this virtualized storage
`mechanism where we are mapping host IDs to virtual logical
`storage. And then thereafter we are also mapping from this
`logical device ID, we are also mapping from there to the physical
`storage devices. And there are multiple storage devices, so-called
`MSDs or mass storage devices that are described in the Bergsten
`reference. So we clearly have a disclosure of mapping. We
`clearly have the disclosure of multiple hosts and multiple storage
`and we have virtualized storage.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`And the combination is with the Hirai patent
`application. And what the Hirai patent application provides is it
`builds on the suggestion in column 15 of the Bergsten patent.
`The Bergsten patent describes how write protection, which is a
`type of access write limitation to protect files that have -- so that
`they can't be written to or overwritten, what Bergsten is saying is
`that's a good thing. You may want to, in the context of the
`Bergsten invention, provide write protection.
`The Bergsten reference doesn't show that in the map. It
`doesn't go into the specifics of it. And that's why we combined
`that reference with the Hirai patent application, because what
`Hirai has is a storage system with multiple hosts, a controller,
`mass storage devices. And what we had in Hirai are access
`controls because what Hirai says is that you can have different
`computers, we'll call those hosts, and they can have access to
`different partitions of storage and their access rights can be
`restricted in various ways. One device might be given read rights
`to one partition and won't have read rights to another partition.
`So it's clearly disclosing access controls. And the combination
`merely takes this concept, this teaching of access rights, access
`controls and essentially combines that with the Bergsten map, the
`map which is taking that logical -- from host to logical to physical
`storage. So that's the combination.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`JUDGE KALAN: What about patent owner's assertion
`that the access rights in Hirai are directed to high-level file
`system access permissions and not NLLBP?
`MR. BOBROW: On slide 22 of the presentation, we
`begin to address that. And turning to slide 23, certainly Bergsten
`discloses NLLBP, native low-level block protocols, I think that's
`unquestioned because it discloses, for example, SCSI. What
`Professor Chase opined in his declaration submitted with our
`petition is that one of ordinary skill would have adapted that
`Bergsten map in view of Hirai's teaching of access control.
`Professor Chase's opinion isn't tied to whether these are the file
`system level or the native low-level block level. It's not
`dependent upon that because the teaching of access controls is
`essentially a teaching of a logical, functional operation. And that
`table is going to teach one of ordinary skill in the art using
`Bergsten, which is already using native low-level block protocol,
`to simply add that functionality of checking to see whether the
`host actually has the right to go from host ID to logical storage to
`physical storage.
`So the form of the access control, whether it's high-level
`or low-level, is not the point of the combination. The
`combination is taking the teaching of Hirai and combining it with
`the native low-level block protocols of Bergsten.
`Now, essentially the same argument as I understood the
`patent owner's response is being made to the Bergsten/Hirai
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`combination and CRD where they say essentially the host ID
`that's in Bergsten is a host ID and it's not the host itself. But
`essentially we know from Figure 7 of Bergsten that Bergsten is
`specifically using a host interface identifier that identifies the
`particular host. And we know that the storage controller receives
`a host ID and a host memory block and then the controller
`determines whether the host ID and block number map exactly to
`the logical device. And that's at slide 26 of the presentation.
`So what this is saying in combination with Figure 7 is
`that Bergsten provides a host ID. That host ID is coming from
`the host. It's received by the controller and a determination is
`made at the logical level in that context. So that's what slide 26
`and Exhibit 1007 in Bergsten is expressly providing.
`JUDGE CHERRY: One question I had. It seems to me
`that in reviewing Dr. Chase's original testimony he didn't really
`recognize that there was or didn't feel there was a difference
`between Hirai -- the patent owner is articulating that Hirai is
`directed to high-level versus low-level. Did he provide any
`testimony about why a person of ordinary skill would look to
`high-level controls for these low-level operations?
`MR. BOBROW: Your Honor, I believe that what his
`declaration provides isn't a distinction between high-level or
`low-level as it pertained to the access rights because I believe that
`Professor Chase understood these access rights to be essentially
`an operation, a logical operation. And whether they are
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`implemented in native low-level or at a higher level wasn't the
`point of Hirai.
`Now, it is important for the invention that they be
`enabled at the native low-level block level because that's what the
`claim provides, but we know that Bergsten, that is the protocol
`that it is using. It is communicating using native low-level block
`protocols. So Professor Chase is saying this is a broad, high-level
`concept. Whether you implement it native low-level or higher
`level doesn't matter for purposes of whether the combination
`would work or whether one of ordinary skill would have reason
`to do the combination.
`JUDGE LEE: Is there any testimony from any witness
`indicating whether there are any technical difficulties in adapting
`access controls for high-level protocols to native low-level
`protocols or whether that is something that's routine, easily done
`by someone of ordinary skill? Is there specific testimony on that?
`MR. BOBROW: Well, my recollection, Your Honor,
`and I don't have a paragraph cite, is that Professor Chase provided
`that in his declaration, that this was within routine skill. If you
`give me a moment, I might be able to call that up. I apologize,
`Your Honor, I don't have that at my fingertips.
`Well, this is a discussion, Your Honor, at paragraphs
`245 to 247 of Professor Chase's declaration where he talks about
`partitioning of access rights. What I'm searching for is a specific
`statement that this is within the skill level of ordinary skill, which
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`I think was Your Honor's question. It may take longer than I
`have time in order to find that specific passage, but I think 245 to
`247 would have that.
`JUDGE LEE: You can verify that and return with it on
`your rebuttal, if you would like.
`MR. BOBROW: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
`Going back to the slide presentation, please, at slide 29, if we
`might, another argument that is made by the patent owner is that
`in the Bergsten/Hirai combination, it wouldn't work to provide
`the mapping allegedly because the host identity would be
`removed before reaching the map. And there is simply no
`support for that assertion, and what's more, it's counter to the
`express disclosure of Bergsten. We know from Figure 7 in
`Bergsten as shown on slide 30 that the input to that storage
`controller is the host interface ID with a host block number. And
`that information, that host interface ID is actually used and
`essentially the question is asked, does the host map exactly to the
`logical device.
`So in Bergsten specifically the host ID that is being sent
`from the host is expressly being used in that mapping function.
`So we have an express disclosure of that. There's no evidence
`that it is somehow stripped away or discredited.
`And with that, let me turn to the final combination,
`which is the Kikuchi/Bergsten combination, unless Your Honors
`have further questions about the Bergsten/Hirai combination.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`And Judge Lee, to address your comment, I apologize it
`took so long to find the reference. After paragraph 249 of
`Professor Chase's declaration, he said -- and this is Exhibit 1010.
`He said, quote, To the extent that Bergsten lacks access controls,
`configurable through the mapping table, a skilled engineer would
`be motivated to combine the teachings of Hirai with the address
`map of Bergsten to manage access controls to groups of host
`computers within the system.
`And in paragraph 250 he says, quote, “In the combined
`system the partition control table of Hirai would be merged with
`the map of Bergsten.” But the ordinary skill language is in
`paragraph 249.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Which petition is that?
`MR. BOBROW: 1207. Now, in the Kikuchi/Bergsten
`combination starting at slide 36, the Kikuchi reference also
`discloses substantially all of the elements of the claimed
`inventions. It is a storage system. It discloses multiple hosts. It
`discloses a router and routing logic. It discloses access controls
`and it provides mapping. And it discloses, however, a single
`storage device. There is one large disk that these multiple hosts
`communicate with remotely. And there are access controls that
`are described by Kikuchi in two ways. One is an access control
`that looks at a host ID and asks, does this host have any rights to
`access the storage device? That's one type of access control, do
`you have rights to access the disk?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01197, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`The other type of access control that it provides is
`essentially allocation and partitioning. What I mean by that is
`that Kikuchi says that you can essentially allocate storage in the
`disk to particular hosts by creating partitions such that the disk
`apparatus is able to allocate a different disk partition to each host.
`The idea is that each host gets its own storage through this
`partitioning mechanism. And an offset system essentially is used
`to provide for these partitions so that when a particular host
`requests storage, there will be a table that essentially says host
`number 1 gets a particular offset and it will then direct that host to
`a particular partition of storage in the disk. That amounts to an
`access control.
`Now, in terms of what is missing from Kikuchi, it does
`not disclose the multiple storage devices that are in the claims of
`the patents at issue. And we rely upon Bergsten to provide that
`functionality. What Bergsten says, and we discussed this briefly
`before, is that it provides for a multiplicity of storage devices and
`mapping from the host to the logical storage level to the physical
`storage level.
`What the proposed combination is, is to take the
`Kikuchi
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
