UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY (US) HOLDINGS, INC.
`and SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ENOVA TECHNOLOGY CORP.
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01297
`Patent 7,900,057 B2
`_____________
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN,
`and FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.23
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
`
`II. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 33: Sullivan and the SATA Standard Together Teach
`Passing DATA FISes to a Cryptographic Engine When Those FISes Are
`Associated with Commands for Transferring User Data .............................. 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner Improperly Separates the Teachings of Sullivan and the
`SATA Standard and Ignores Their Combined Teachings .......................... 2
`
`Patent Owner Illogically Reads Sullivan and the SATA Standard to
`Encrypt Every Data FIS .............................................................................. 7
`
`Sullivan’s Filter Module Reinforces Using Commands to Determine
`Whether to Encrypt or Decrypt Associated Data ..................................... 10
`
`4. A Skilled Artisan Would Have Known Which SATA Commands
`Transfer User Data and Which Transfer Control Information ................. 14
`
`B. Dependent Claims 36-38: The Combination of Sullivan and the SATA
`Standard Teaches Data FISes Not Associated With the Pre-Defined
`Category of Command Set. ......................................................................... 19
`
`C. Dependent Claims 34 and 39: A Skilled Artisan Would Have Known the
`Purpose of the Commands Recited in Claims 34 and 39 ............................ 20
`
`D.
`
`Patent Owner Has Not Established a Nexus Between the Claimed
`Invention of the ’057 Patent and the Purported Evidence of Secondary
`Considerations ............................................................................................. 22
`
`III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00345 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2014) .....................................................................9
`
`Endress + Hauser, Inc. v. Hawk Measurement Sys. Pty. Ltd.,
`122 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................................14
`
`
`Geo M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Mach. Sys. Int’l LLC,
`618 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................23
`
`Hauser, Inc. v. Hawk Measurement Sys. Pty. Ltd.,
`122 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................................15
`
`In re Huang,
`100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..........................................................................................23
`
`In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
`800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ..........................................................................................3
`
`In re Sovish,
`769 F.2d 738 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................................9
`
`Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc.,
`392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................24
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................................... 7, 9-12
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`481 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................15
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................22
`
`Scanner Techs. Corp. v. ICOS Vision Sys. Corp.,
`528 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..........................................................................................9
`
`Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc.,
`632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................23, 24
`
`ii
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBITS1
`
`Exhibit 1001: U.S. Patent No. 7,900,057 (“the ’057 Patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1002: U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0054914 (“Sullivan”)
`
`Exhibit 1003:
`
`Serial ATA: High Speed Serialized AT Attachment, Revision
`1.0a (“the SATA Standard”)
`
`
`Exhibit 1004:
`
`
`Exhibit 1005:
`
`Exhibit 1006: Declaration of Darrell Long, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 1007:
`
`Knut Grimsrud and Hubbert Smith, Serial ATA Storage
`Architecture and Applications, (Intel Press 2003) (“Grimsrud”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,262 to Van Rumpt (“Van Rumpt”)
`
`File Wrapper for U.S. Patent Appl. No. 11/282,175 (paginations
`added for convenience)
`
`Enova’s Opening Claim Construction Brief from Enova v. WD
`[Dkt. 129]
`
`Enova’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief from Enova v.
`WD [Dkt. 137]
`
`Enova’s Opening Brief Regarding Defendants’ Request for
`Additional Claim Construction from Enova v. WD [Dkt. 462]
`
`Enova’s Responsive Brief Regarding Defendants’ Request for
`Additional Claim Construction from Enova v. WD [Dkt. 468]
`
`Transcript from Markman Hearing in Enova v. WD [Dkt. 190]
`
`
`Exhibit 1008:
`
`
`Exhibit 1009:
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1010:
`
`
`Exhibit 1011:
`
`
`Exhibit 1012:
`
`
`
`
`1 Citations to page numbers in these exhibits refer to the pagination in the original
`document with the exception of Exhibits 1007 and 1028, in which the citations
`refer to the added paginations.
`
`iii
`
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1013: Enova’s Opposition to the Motions for Summary Judgment of
`Noninfringement of Defendants in Enova v. WD [Dkt. 367]
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion from Enova v. WD
`
`Supplemental Claim Construction Order from Enova v. WD
`
`Enova’s Opposition to Summary Judgment Motions of
`Invalidity
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,386,734
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,136,995
`
`Information Technology – AT Attachment with Packet
`Interface – 5 (ATA/ATAPI-5) (“the ATA-5 Standard”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,276,662
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,860,089
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,506,078
`
`Ulysses D. Black, OSI: A Model for Computer Communications
`Standards (Prentice-Hall, 1991)
`
`
`Exhibit 1020: Dr. Darrell Long curriculum vitae
`
`Exhibit 1021:
`
`Exhibit 1022:
`
`Exhibit 1023:
`
`Exhibit 1024:
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1014:
`
`Exhibit 1015:
`
`Exhibit 1016:
`
`
`Exhibit 1017:
`
`Exhibit 1018:
`
`Exhibit 1019:
`
`
`Exhibit 1025:
`
`Exhibit 1026:
`
`Exhibit 1027:
`
`Exhibit 1028:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,539,797
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,809,564
`
`U.S. Patent Application 2006/0136697
`
`External Serial ATA White Paper, Silicon Image, September
`2004
`
`
`Exhibit 1029: G. Simmons, Contemporary Cryptography: The Science of
`Information Integrity (IEEE Press, 1992)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`

`
`Information Technology – AT Attachment Interface for Disk
`Drives (1994) (“ATA-1”) (paginations added for convenience)
`
`Information Technology – AT Attachment Interface with
`Extensions (ATA-2) (1996) (“ATA-2”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,246,192
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0073899
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0223181
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,366,802
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,360,010
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,510
`
`Declaration of David Gross In Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice Admission
`
`Declaration of Calvin Litsey In Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice Admission
`
`Dr. Thomas M. Conte Deposition Transcript for IPR2014-
`01178, IPR2014-001297 and IPR2014-01449
`
`Additional excerpts from Knut Grimsrud and Hubbert Smith,
`Serial ATA Storage Architecture and Applications, (Intel Press
`2003) (“Grimsrud”)
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1030:
`
`
`Exhibit 1031:
`
`
`Exhibit 1032:
`
`Exhibit 1033:
`
`Exhibit 1034:
`
`Exhibit 1035:
`
`Exhibit 1036:
`
`Exhibit 1037
`
`Exhibit 1038
`
`Exhibit 1039:
`
`
`Exhibit 1040:
`
`
`Exhibit 1041:
`
`
`Exhibit 1042:
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`Petitioners demonstrated in their Petition that the ’057 Patent’s alleged
`
`invention in claims 33-39 of a SATA encryption device that sends Data FIS
`
`payloads for cryptographic processing when they are associated with certain SATA
`
`commands is obvious in view of the teachings of Sullivan and the SATA Standard.
`
`In its Response, Patent Owner contests only three limitations—the
`
`“association” limitation in claim 33 (Resp., 17-46); the “Data FIS not associated
`
`with the pre-defined category of command set” limitations in claims 36, 37, and 38
`
`(id., 46-48); and the list of commands listed in claims 34 and 39 (id., 48-50).2
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments fail because they ignore three key aspects of the prior
`
`art: First, the teachings of Sullivan and the knowledge and common sense of the
`
`skilled artisan that certain information used to execute, set up, or coordinate data
`
`transfers between a computer and storage device (often referred to as “control
`
`information”) should not be altered by encryption because doing so would render
`
`the information unintelligible. Second, data written to and retrieved from the
`
`device (often referred to as “user data”) may contain sensitive information and can
`
`be cryptographically processed. Third, that under the SATA Standard, the type of
`
`
`2 Patent Owner also makes arguments related to claims 16-19, and 28-32, but does
`
`not explain how they are relevant to the claims at issue in this IPR, claims 33-39.
`
`1
`
`
`

`
`
`
`information sent in a Data FIS is dictated by its associated command. Patent
`
`Owner provides no explanation why, in view of these teachings, a skilled artisan
`
`would not have predictably used SATA’s commands to identify Data FISes that
`
`contain control information, which Sullivan teaches should be left unaltered, and
`
`Data FISes that contain user data, which may include sensitive information and can
`
`be encrypted as taught by Sullivan. Such an approach would have been especially
`
`obvious in view of Sullivan’s further teaching of a flexible “filter module” that
`
`examines commands and, based on whether a command is part of a “predetermined
`
`allowed set of commands” such as read and write commands used for transferring
`
`user data, decides whether to send the associated data on for cryptographic
`
`processing. Patent Owner’s additional arguments regarding alleged secondary
`
`factors fail in view of the strength of Petitioners’ obviousness arguments and
`
`Patent Owner’s failure to show any nexus between those factors and the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`A. Independent Claim 33: Sullivan and the SATA Standard Together
`Teach Passing DATA FISes to a Cryptographic Engine When Those
`FISes Are Associated with Commands for Transferring User Data
`
`1. Patent Owner Improperly Separates the Teachings of Sullivan and
`the SATA Standard and Ignores their Combined Teachings
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that the prior art does not teach “associating FISes with
`
`pre-defined command sets for cryptographic operations” because Sullivan does not
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`
`
`disclose SATA’s associations between commands and Data FISes, and because the
`
`SATA Standard does not disclose encryption. (Resp., 11.) This argument
`
`improperly isolates each reference instead of considering them together. “Non-
`
`obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
`
`rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. Thus, [a prior
`
`art reference] must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in
`
`combination with the prior art as a whole.” In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
`
`1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).
`
`As Petitioners have shown, the combined teachings of Sullivan and the
`
`SATA Standard render the claimed “association” limitation obvious, because the
`
`SATA Standard teaches the link between commands and the type of data sent in
`
`associated Data FISes, and Sullivan teaches the use of a SATA encryption device
`
`and what types of information should and should not be encrypted or decrypted.
`
`Thus, using SATA commands to separate Data FISes containing control
`
`information that should not be altered from Data FISes containing user data that
`
`can be encrypted would have been a predictable way for Sullivan’s device to make
`
`its encryption decisions when implemented in SATA.
`
`In particular, Sullivan discloses a device that can encrypt all user data, and
`
`thus all sensitive user data, transferred between a host computer and storage device
`
`using “serial data transmission protocols.” (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ [0002]-[0004], [0006],
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`
`
`[0027]-[0028], [0035], [0050], [0070]; Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 96, 103-108; see also Ex.
`
`1041, 39:10-20.) In addition, and to ensure operability, Sullivan teaches that
`
`control information is not altered and is transmitted in its unencrypted form. (Ex.
`
`1002 at Abstract (“[t]he encryption unit encrypts the data and passes the control
`
`information to the target device”), ¶¶ [0006] and [0009] (control information
`
`treated differently than user data and not encrypted), claims 1 and 9 (sending
`
`encrypted data and leaving control information associated with the data
`
`“unaltered” and in “an unencrypted form”); Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 96, 103-108, 145-146.)
`
`These teachings reflect what the skilled artisan already knew: user data sent to or
`
`from a storage device—such as a Microsoft Word document (Ex. 1006, ¶ 21)—can
`
`be encrypted without affecting the operations of the computer and the device (id.,
`
`¶¶ 48, 146; see also Ex. 1041, 38:24-39:2 (noting prior art “full disk encryption”)),
`
`while encrypting control information renders it unintelligible and thus unusable to
`
`the computer or storage device. (Ex. 1002, ¶ [0009]; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 45-48, 155; Ex.
`
`2061, ¶¶ 54, 90; Ex. 1041, 65:19-22.)
`
`Patent Owner agrees that Sullivan teaches implementing its device using
`
`SATA (Ex. 1002, Abstract, ¶ [0038]; Resp., 19, 23, 27), and that in SATA, each
`
`command dictates the sequence of FISes—including Data FISes—associated with
`
`that command (Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 88-95; Ex. 2061, ¶42 (agreeing that the SATA
`
`command protocols “dictate a prescribed sequence of FIS transmissions”); see also
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, 217 (noting the “associated PIO data in command” for FISes in a PIO
`
`data-in operation); Ex. 1001, 7:61-62 (observing that, in SATA, “[a]n ATA data
`
`transfer command usually associates with one or more data FISes until the end of
`
`its protocol sequence.”)). In addition, Patent Owner’s expert confirmed that a
`
`skilled artisan could derive the “purpose and function” of each SATA command
`
`from the ATA specification (Ex. 2061, ¶ 41), which SATA incorporates by
`
`reference (Ex. 1003, 13 (listing standards that “constitute provisions of this
`
`[SATA] standard”)), and further agreed with Dr. Long’s examples showing that
`
`specific read and write commands trigger sequences with Data FISes containing
`
`user data, while the IDENTIFY DEVICE command triggers a sequence with a
`
`Data FIS containing control information about the storage device3 (Ex. 2061, ¶¶
`
`42-46; Ex. 1041, 29:6-37:134). Patent Owner’s expert also acknowledged other
`
`
`3 Patent Owner alleges that Dr. Long made “mistakes” when describing some
`
`portions of the SATA Standard but never explains how any of them are relevant to
`
`its arguments. (Resp., 7-10.) Accordingly, Petitioners do not address them here.
`
`4 Dr. Conte incorrectly identified Ex. 2061 as Ex. 2065 at his deposition. (See Ex.
`
`1041, 6:7-12, 6:17-7:10.) Accordingly, references to Ex. 2065 throughout his
`
`deposition are references to Ex. 2061. The paragraph numbers and pertinent
`
`testimony are the same in each Ex. 2061 in each of the three IPR proceedings.
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`
`
`read and write commands that a skilled artisan would have known could be used to
`
`transfer user data such as Microsoft Word documents. (Ex. 1041, 77:16-78:12,
`
`80:3-24.) Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have known whether a Data FIS
`
`contains user data or control information from its associated command (Ex. 1006,
`
`¶¶ 30-35, 49, 78, 80, 87-95) and would have found it obvious to use that command
`
`to determine which Data FISes to encrypt and which Data FISes to leave unaltered
`
`(id., ¶¶45-49, 107-108, 143-147).
`
`The obviousness of these claims is further supported by Sullivan’s flexible
`
`“filter module” that can be configured to pass data to the cryptographic core when
`
`that data is associated with a “predetermined allowed set of commands,” such as
`
`read or write commands. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ [0055]-[0056].) A skilled artisan would
`
`have recognized that such a filter could be predictably used in SATA to identify
`
`“allowed” commands and pass their associated Data FISes containing user data for
`
`encryption. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ [0003], [0035], [0070]; Ex. 1006, ¶ 148; Ex. 2060,
`
`74:24-78:12.) Using the filter in this way would have been well within the
`
`technical grasp and existing knowledge of the skilled artisan, because using
`
`commands to identify information for encryption was already known in the art.
`
`(Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 47, 50-54 (citing Ex. 1005, which discloses the use of “control logic
`
`for recognizing pre-defined hard disk command words” associated with control
`
`information and passing through that information without encryption).) Thus,
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`
`
`when all of the teachings of Sullivan and the SATA Standard are considered
`
`together, especially in view of the knowledge of the skilled artisan, the
`
`“association” limitation in claim 1 is simply a “combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods” that “does no more than yield predictable results.”
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 114, 156.
`
`2. Patent Owner Illogically Reads Sullivan and the SATA Standard to
`Encrypt Every Data FIS
`
`Despite these clear teachings, Patent Owner insists that a skilled artisan
`
`
`
`would have concluded that implementing Sullivan using SATA requires encrypting
`
`or decrypting the payloads of every Data FIS—even those Data FISes containing
`
`control information—to create an admittedly “non-functional system.” (Resp., 26.)
`
`To make this argument, Patent Owner conflates the headers and payloads in
`
`Sullivan’s serial packet with the distinct headers and payloads of SATA’s sequence
`
`of FISes5 and then asserts that “Sullivan, as applied to the SATA Standard, is a
`
`discussion of the internals of every FIS” (Resp. at 24 (emphasis in original)) and
`
`“has no disclosure regarding whether a given Data FIS (or a subset of Data FISes)
`
`
`5 Patent Owner misconstrues Dr. Long’s testimony in an attempt to conflate the
`
`exemplary packet in Sullivan and the FISes in SATA. (Resp., 23-24.) Dr. Long
`
`repeatedly made clear that Sullivan’s packet and a SATA FIS are two different
`
`concepts. (Ex. 2060, 58:5-9, 63:3-6; 79: 5-18; 82:7-10; 83:17-25; 84:13-17.)
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`
`
`contains data that should be encrypted or not[.]” (id., 19-20). This argument—
`
`which Patent Owner makes as the primary argument of its Response (Resp., 19-
`
`27)—is flawed for multiple reasons.
`
`First, Patent Owner ignores Sullivan’s broader teaching and the knowledge
`
`of a skilled artisan that control information should be treated differently from user
`
`data for encryption purposes. Sullivan describes making encryption decisions
`
`based on the type of data and not simply the location of the data (e.g., in a header
`
`or in a payload). (Ex. 1002, ¶ [0006] (“the data and the control information can be
`
`treated separately”), claim 9; Ex. 1006, ¶ 104.) In addition, Petitioners have
`
`demonstrated that this teaching was already known to skilled artisans, as confirmed
`
`by the prior art. (Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 51-55 (noting that Ex. 1005, “is an example of how
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the art at that time knew to encrypt and decrypt user
`
`data but not control information” based on the associated command).)
`
`Second, Patent Owner’s argument mistakenly assumes that a skilled artisan
`
`would have failed to appreciate the differences between Sullivan’s exemplary
`
`packet and a SATA FIS and would have treated them the same for encryption
`
`purposes. In fact, Sullivan teaches a flexible cryptographic device that can be
`
`implemented using a variety of data transfer protocols, including parallel protocols
`
`that do not employ any serial packets, and is designed to “accommodate[]
`
`whatever standard is used.” (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ [0050] (emphasis added), [0028]; see
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`
`
`also ¶¶ [0008], [0038], [0069] (“[t]his invention … can accommodate protocols of
`
`various types, such as multiple types of serial data transmission.”).) Therefore,
`
`Sullivan in no way teaches or suggests that SATA FISes must be treated identically
`
`to its exemplary packets for encryption purposes. (Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 112-113.)
`
`Third, Patent Owner’s argument requires a skilled artisan to act irrationally
`
`and create an admittedly “non-functional system.” (Resp., 26.) It is illogical to
`
`assume, as Patent Owner does, that a skilled artisan would jettison his or her
`
`common sense and “ordinary creativity,” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, ignore how
`
`Sullivan’s teachings would actually apply when implemented using the SATA
`
`protocol, and instead create an encryption device that fails to separate out control
`
`information for purposes of encryption. Courts and the Board have rejected similar
`
`attempts to ignore the common sense of a skilled artisan and to unreasonably
`
`restrict the teachings of the prior art. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1985) (stating that “obviousness . . . involves consideration of the ordinary skill of
`
`the art” and rejecting an argument that “presumes stupidity rather than skill”);
`
`Scanner Techs. Corp. v. ICOS Vision Sys. Corp., 528 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (“[T]he relatively small logical gap between the prior art and the claim in
`
`this case is closed by a person of ordinary skill in the art ‘pursu[ing] known options
`
`within his or her technical grasp.’”) (citation omitted); Corning Optical
`
`Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2013-00345 at 32-34
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`
`
`(P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2014) (“[W]e also are not persuaded by [Patent Owner’s]
`
`contention that our obviousness evaluation here requires that we consider only the
`
`approach presented in the illustration reproduced above in combining the teachings
`
`of the prior art, without recourse to any other assessment of the skill of a person of
`
`ordinary skill’s viewpoint in so combining the teachings.”).
`
`In sum, Petitioners have shown that, when properly accounting for the
`
`knowledge and creativity of the skilled artisan and following the combined
`
`teachings of Sullivan and the SATA Standard, configuring Sullivan’s
`
`cryptographic device to identify commands that transfer user data that is suitable
`
`for cryptographic processing, as distinct from commands transferring control
`
`information that is not suitable for cryptographic processing, would have achieved
`
`the predictable result of a functional encryption device that accomplishes
`
`Sullivan’s cryptographic goals. KSR, 550 U.S. at 401 (“If a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of
`
`doing so, §103 likely bars its patentability”).
`
`3. Sullivan’s Filter Module Reinforces Using Commands to Determine
`Whether to Encrypt or Decrypt Associated Data
`
`Petitioners also have shown that Sullivan discloses a flexible filter module
`
`
`
`that can, among other things, (1) operate within the encryption unit, (2) identify
`
`commands from a “predetermined allowed set of commands,” such as “read, write,
`
`and other commands associated with data or memory access and storage,” and (3)
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`
`
`pass the data associated with those commands to the cryptographic core. (See Ex.
`
`1006, ¶¶ 148-149; Pet., 33-35; Ex. 2060, 77:25-78:20.) As explained above, it
`
`would have been “a predictable use of prior art elements according to their
`
`established functions,” KSR, supra, 550 U.S. at 417, to configure the filter module
`
`to send a Data FIS to the cryptographic core when it is associated with a command
`
`from a predetermined allowed set of commands. (Supra, 6-7; see also Decision,
`
`15.)
`
`In its Response, Patent Owner does not argue that the filter module could not
`
`be used for this purpose, nor demonstrate that doing so would have been beyond
`
`the technical grasp of a skilled artisan or yielded unpredictable results. Instead,
`
`Patent Owner again mistakenly equates a packet in Sullivan with a single SATA
`
`FIS and contends that a skilled artisan would have used the filter module to encrypt
`
`the allowed commands themselves and to block all Data FISes. (Resp., 31-32.) As
`
`Patent Owner’s expert acknowledges, however, encrypting a command would
`
`render it “unintelligible” to the storage device (Ex. 1041, 65:19-22), and rejecting
`
`all Data FISes means that no data transfer operations could be completed (Ex.
`
`1003, 199 (Data FISes “are used for transporting payload data, such as the data
`
`read from or written to a number of sectors on a hard drive.”)). Thus, Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed interpretation results in a system that cannot read, store,
`
`encrypt, or decrypt any data—an implementation clearly at odds with Sullivan,
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`
`
`SATA, and common sense. See KSR, supra, 550 U.S. at 421, 427-428.
`
`As Petitioners have shown, rather than adopting Patent Owner’s illogical
`
`implementation, a skilled artisan would have known that, when implemented in
`
`SATA, the information in Sullivan’s exemplary packet is organized into a
`
`sequence of associated FISes that comprise a SATA transaction. (See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1006, ¶¶ 73, 93, 148-149; Ex. 1003, 199 (“[The Data FIS] is generally only one
`
`element of a sequence of transactions leading up to a data transmission and the
`
`transactions leading up to and following the Data FIS establish the proper context
`
`for both the host and device.”), 200; Ex. 1004, 171.) Such a person also would
`
`have recognized that the filter module could be configured to identify certain
`
`commands, such as read and write commands, so that the user data in the
`
`associated Data FISes could be encrypted or decrypted , thereby achieving
`
`Sullivan’s goal of encrypting all sensitive information. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶ [0003],
`
`[0035], [0070]; Ex. 1006, ¶ 148.)
`
`Patent Owner’s other argument—that the filter module, when implemented
`
`in SATA, would cause the encryption of Data FISes sent pursuant to commands
`
`involving access to any information (whether user data or control information),
`
`including the READ LOG EXT and SMART READ DATA commands that cause
`
`the transfer of control information—also fails. (Resp., 33-34.) First, Patent Owner
`
`has pointed to nothing in the challenged claims requiring that Data FISes
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`
`
`associated with those commands pass through unencrypted. Second, this argument
`
`runs contrary to Sullivan’s teaching that control information should not be altered.
`
`(Resp., 21-22 (“Data FISes sent in response to [the READ LOG EXT command]
`
`should not be encrypted or decrypted, because they contain status information, not
`
`user data.”); Ex. 1002, ¶ [0010] (“control information” includes “commands and
`
`status information”).) Third, Patent Owner reads Sullivan’s suggestion that
`
`“[t]ypical allowed commands will be read, write, and other commands associated
`
`with data or memory access and storage” out of context. (Ex. 1002, ¶ [0056].) In
`
`Sullivan, the terms “data or memory access and storage” refer to commands for
`
`transferring user data between a computer and a storage device, which are typically
`
`in the form of “read” and “write” commands that transfer user data in the various
`
`protocols Sullivan identifies. (Ex. 2060, 77:21-78:14; Ex. 1006, ¶ 148.) In fact,
`
`the ’057 Patent itself uses similar language, i.e., “reading/writing-data from/to
`
`physical storage media,” to identify SATA commands that convey user data that
`
`should be encrypted. (Ex. 1001, 8:26-30; Ex. 1006, ¶¶ 120-121.) Patent Owner
`
`provides no rationale for why a skilled artisan would have been misled into
`
`thinking a command transfers user data simply because the name of the command
`
`includes the word “read” or “write,” when such a person would have understood
`
`from the purpose and function of the command whether it transferred user data or
`
`control information. (Ex. 1006, ¶ 109; Ex. 2060, 22:12-24; 43:3-13 (explaining the
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`
`
`READ LOG command is not used for retrieving user data); Ex. 2061, ¶ 41.)
`
`Finally, Patent Owner asserts that a filter module that passes “read and write
`
`commands that only result in Data FISes with user data” does not teach a main
`
`controller configured to determine whether to send a Data FIS to the cryptographic
`
`engine “responsive” to the Data FIS having an association with a category of
`
`command. (Resp., 34-35.) However, a skilled artisan would have appreciated that
`
`the filter module will pass a Data FIS to the cryptographic core only when it is
`
`associated with an allowed command and thus makes an encryption determination
`
`“responsive to” the Data FISes’ association with an allowed command. (Ex. 1006,
`
`¶ 148.) Accordingly, the filter module performs the recited functions.
`
`4. A Skilled Artisan Would Have Known Which SATA Commands
`Transfer User Data and Which Transfer Control Information
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that a skilled artisan would not have known which
`
`SATA commands transfer Data FISes with user data and which transfer Data FISes
`
`with control information because “the purpose of the commands is not found in the
`
`SATA Standard.” (Resp., 38.) This ignores the knowledge of the skilled artisan,
`
`who would have been familiar with the “then-popular” ATA standard that defines
`
`the “purpose and function” of the commands used in SATA and therefore would
`
`have known the type of information transmitted pursuant to those commands. (Ex.
`
`2061, ¶¶ 27, 41; Resp., 5 (“SATA emulates the same ATA commands); Ex. 2060,
`
`91:19-93:16; Endress + Hauser, Inc. v. Hawk Measurement Sys. Pty. Ltd., 122
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`
`
`F.3d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The person of ordinary skill is a hypothetical
`
`person who is presumed to be aware of all the pertinent prior art.”) (citation
`
`omitted).) Moreover, if a skilled artisan wanted to confirm the “purpose and
`
`function” of a particular command, he or she would have known to look to the
`
`ATA Standard (Ex. 2060, 14:24-15:9) because the SATA Standard explicitly
`
`incorporates it by reference (Ex. 1003, 13 (stating that the ATA-5 standard is one
`
`of the standards that, “through reference in the text, constitute provisions of this
`
`[the SATA] standard.”)). See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 481 F.3d
`
`1371, 1381 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[M]aterial incorporated by reference is
`
`effectively part of the host document as if it were explicitly contained therein.”)
`
`(citation omitted).
`
`Patent Owner challenges Petitioners’ showing that a skilled artisan could
`
`readily identify the contents of a Data FIS using the associated command by
`
`claiming it “is nothing more than the application of the teachings of the ’057 Patent
`
`in hindsight to fill in the gaps in the prior art.” (Resp., 36.) Yet, as shown above,
`
`the SATA Standard specifies the sequence and contents of FISes—including Data
`
`FISes—associated with a particular command, and a skilled artisan therefore
`
`would have readily used those commands to determine the type of information in a
`
`Data FIS. (See supra, 3-5.) Moreover, Patent Owner’s own expert identifies
`
`numerous commands in SATA that cause the transmission of Data FISes
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`
`
`containing specific types of information and cites either his basic knowledge or
`
`prior art standards. (E.g., Ex. 2061, ¶¶ 42-46 (showing “User Data” being
`
`transmitted in a Data FIS for WRITE SECTOR, READ SECTOR, and DMA
`
`READ commands, and “Control Data” being transferred in a Data FIS in respo