`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and QUANTUM CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2014-01463
`Patent 7,934,041
`________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1
`
`II. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ....................................................... 1
`
`III. REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS ............................................ 1
`
`A. Summary.................................................................................................... 1
`
`B. Patent Owner Fails to Apply the Broadest Reasonable Construction ............. 2
`
`1. Patent Owner Has Improperly Narrowed the “Map” Limitation............2
`
`2. Patent Owner Has Improperly Narrowed the “Control Access”
`Limitation ...................................................................................................8
`
`C. The Cited Prior Art Teaches the Claims of the ’041 Patent ...................... 10
`
`1. Patent Owner Ignores the Express Teachings of the CRD-5500
`User Manual .............................................................................................10
`
`2.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 20, and 37 are Invalid .....................................13
`
`a) Under Any Interpretation the CRD-5500 Manual and HP Journal
`Disclose the “Map” Limitation ...........................................................13
`
`b) Under Any Interpretation the CRD-5500 Manual and HP Journal
`Disclose the “Control Access” Limitation...........................................16
`
`3. Dependent Claims 6, 25, and 42 are Invalid........................................20
`
`4. Dependent Claims 13, 32, and 49 are Invalid......................................20
`
`5. Dependent Claims 14, 15, 33, 34, 50, and 51 are Invalid ....................21
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`D. Patent Owner Has Not Shown Objective Evidence of Nonobviousness ... 22
`
`1. Patent Owner’s Router Sales Do Not Establish Commercial
`Success .....................................................................................................23
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Licenses Do Not Establish Commercial Success........24
`
`3. Long-Felt Need...................................................................................25
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................25
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case Law
`
`Autel U.S. Inc., et al. v. Bosch Automotive Service Solutions,
`IPR2014-00183, Paper 59 (PTAB 2015)……………………………….…………15
`
`In re Allen, 324 F.2d 993(CCPA 1963) ……………………………….…………..25
`
`In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .……….……….…23
`
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573(Fed. Cir. 1995) ……………………………..……24
`
`In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996). ………………………………23, 24, 25
`
`In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ………………………………...……17
`
`In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). ………………………………..……15
`
`Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc.,
`392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ………………………………………………...25
`
`Joy Techs., Inc. v. Manbeck,
`751 F.Supp. 225 (D.D.C. 1990). ……………………………….…….…….……23
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)……………………………….22
`
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009). …………………………………….………...…25
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23………………………………………………………………..........1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)……………………………………………………………...…2
`
`v
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner filed its Response to Petition on May 26, 2015 (“Response,”
`
`Paper 19). Petitioners submit this reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioners request cancellation of claims 1-53 of U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`(“the ’041 Patent”) by way of this inter partes review.
`
`III. REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS
`A.
`Summary
`In its Response, Patent Owner repeatedly asserts that the CRD-5500 Manual
`
`does not teach mapping storage “to particular hosts.” See, e.g., Resp. at 1
`
`(emphasis in original). These assertions contradict the explicit teachings of the
`
`CRD-5500 Manual: “By using the controller's Host LUN Mapping feature, you can
`
`assign redundancy groups to a particular host.” CQ-1004, p. 1-2 (emphasis
`
`added). Even the name of the CRD-5500’s mapping feature—“Host LUN
`
`Mapping”—confirms that the CRD-5500 was specifically designed to perform
`
`mapping and access controls on a per-host basis. To avoid these clear teachings of
`
`the prior art, Patent Owner seeks to improperly narrow the “map” and “access
`
`control” limitations by reading in requirements that contradict the claim language,
`
`lack support in the specification, and exclude the actual embodiments disclosed in
`
`the ’041 Patent.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`Patent Owner Fails to Apply the Broadest Reasonable Construction
`B.
`In an inter partes review, the Board gives claims their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner Has Improperly Narrowed the “Map”
`Limitation
`Patent Owner does not offer its own construction of the “map” limitation in its
`
`Response, but nevertheless attempts to narrow the limitation with requirements that
`
`do not find support in the claim language or specification. See Resp. at 7, 9, 10. In
`
`particular, Patent Owner asserts that “the map must identify precisely to which host
`
`the specified storage has been allocated.” See, e.g., Resp. at 10 (emphasis added); see
`
`also id. at 7 (“the ‘map’ must identify within the map the precise host to which
`
`storage has been allocated within the map.”) (emphasis in original). According to
`
`Patent Owner, a host identifier in the map is not “precise” unless it intrinsically
`
`identifies a particular host regardless of changes in physical cabling. See, e.g., Resp. at
`
`18-19, 37-38. In Patent Owner’s words, the identifier must be so inherently tied to the
`
`host, for example, that the map itself has a “concept of the particular computer that is
`
`‘Bill’s computer’.” Id. at 38. Patent Owner’s interpretation is not the broadest
`
`reasonable construction because (i) neither the claim language nor the specification
`
`require the map to represent hosts with any specific type of identifier, and (ii) the
`
`requirement that the map must include precise identifiers intrinsically tied to hosts
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`would exclude the identifiers actually used in the ’041 Patent—i.e., temporary
`
`intermediary identifiers. See, e.g., CQ-1001, 8:18-21; 7:1-5.
`
`First, the claims merely recite a map with “representations” of devices, without
`
`requiring any specific type of representation. Similarly, the ’041 specification teaches
`
`associating hosts and storage, but is silent as to the specific manner in which hosts
`
`are represented for the purposes of the association. As illustrated in the portions of
`
`the specification cited by the Patent Owner, the specification merely teaches
`
`associating hosts and storage through non-specific “mapping techniques.” See
`
`Resp. at 6 (citing CQ-1001, 4:41-44, 50-53 (“‘storage allocated to each attached
`
`workstation’ through ‘mapping tables or other mapping techniques’ so that
`
`allocated storage ‘can only be accessed by the associated workstation’”) (emphasis
`
`in original)). And, as acknowledged by Patent Owner’s expert, the specification
`
`contains no implementation details or examples of mapping tables. CQ-1025,
`
`93:14-16 (“there are . . . no specific implementations of the specific mapping table
`
`shown in the specification”). Accordingly, given that the specification is silent as
`
`to the specific manner in which hosts are represented in the map, Patent Owner’s
`
`requirement that the claimed map must represent hosts with a specific type of
`
`identifier cannot be the broadest reasonable construction.
`
`Second, according to Patent Owner, not only must the claimed map include
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`precise identifiers, but these precise identifiers must be intrinsically tied to a host. That
`
`is, a host identifier must be perpetually associated, for example, with “the particular
`
`computer that is ‘Bill’s computer’,” such that the map can distinguish between Bill’s
`
`computer and any other computer regardless of any physical cabling reconfigurations.
`
`See, e.g., Resp. at 37-38; see also id. at 18-19 (asserting that the map must distinguish
`
`between “Host #1” and “Host #2” if the “administrator physically switched the
`
`cables”).
`
`The specification, however, does not describe identifiers intrinsically tied to
`
`particular hosts. Instead, the identifiers utilized in the ’041 Patent to represent hosts
`
`are intermediary identifiers that are temporarily associated with hosts for
`
`communication purposes—and, as such, may be associated with many different hosts
`
`over time, as acknowledged by Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Levy. CQ-1025 112:16-25,
`
`134:11-20, 113:10-12; CQ-1001, 8:18-21. Patent Owner’s reinterpretation cannot be
`
`the broadest reasonable construction because it would exclude the actual identifiers
`
`used in the mapping of the ’041 Patent to represent hosts.
`
`In his deposition, Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Levy explained that “[i]n order to
`
`allocate storage, the storage router needs a way to refer to hosts.” CQ-1025, 124:23-
`
`24. In contrast to his declaration that colloquially refers to hosts by names such as
`
`“Bill’s computer” and “Lisa’s computer” (Resp. at 37-38), Dr. Levy admitted that the
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`storage router actually represents hosts in the mapping by (i) an Arbitrated Loop
`
`Physical Address (AL_PA) when hosts are connected to the storage router via Fibre
`
`Channel (CQ-1025, 124:20-25; 63:9-12; CQ-1001, 8:11-21, 7:32-35) and (ii) a SCSI
`
`ID when hosts are connected to the storage router via a SCSI bus (CQ-1025, 63:13-
`
`16, 124:20-125:8; CQ-1001, 7:1-5). As explained below, each of the AL_PA and
`
`SCSI ID identifiers described in the specification are intermediary identifiers that are
`
`temporarily associated with hosts for communication purposes; they are not
`
`intrinsically tied to any particular host, as required by Patent Owner’s interpretation of
`
`the “map” limitation.
`
`An Arbitrated Loop Physical Address (AL_PA) identifies a Fibre Channel port
`
`and creates a communication path between the storage router and the host associated
`
`with the port. See CQ-1025, 123:15-24; 87:24-88:6, 90:4-13. According to both the
`
`’041 specification and Dr. Levy, the AL_PA may be temporarily assigned to a port
`
`and “will change, either after power cycle or loop reconfiguration.” CQ-1001, 8:19-
`
`21; CQ-1025 112:16-25, 196:3-4. As a result, a given AL_PA may be associated with
`
`different hosts on an arbitrated loop before and after a reconfiguration, as
`
`acknowledged by Dr. Levy. CQ-1025, 134:11-20 (referring to CQ-1023 in which the
`
`AL_PAs of Workstations A and B in Fig. 3 are switched). An identifier that may be
`
`associated with a different host after every reconfiguration does not identify any one
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`particular host in the intrinsic manner required under Patent Owner’s interpretation.
`
`Dr. Levy further testified that a SCSI ID is adequate to represent a host with
`
`respect to the mapping claimed in the ’041 Patent. See CQ-1025, 63:13-16, 124:20-
`
`125:8. According to the SCSI-2 specification (cited by Dr. Levy in his declaration),
`
`however, a SCSI ID is not assigned to a host, but is instead assigned to a “host
`
`adapter” that “connects between a host system and the SCSI bus.” CQ-2037 at 31
`
`(emphasis added). A SCSI ID creates a communication path between the storage
`
`router and the host associated with the host adapter. CQ-1025, 123:15-24. And,
`
`because “you may have to reassign SCSI IDs when you reconfigure the system,” as
`
`explained by Dr. Levy, SCSI IDs are only temporarily associated with hosts. CQ-
`
`1025, 113:10-12. Accordingly, because a SCSI ID is an intermediary identifier that is
`
`temporarily associated with a host for communication purposes, it is not intrinsically
`
`tied to any particular host.
`
`Moreover, because a SCSI ID does not intrinsically identify any particular host,
`
`an administrator can transparently replace a host represented in the map by a SCSI
`
`ID with an entirely different host simply by assigning the replacement host the same
`
`SCSI ID. For example, with reference to Fig. 3 of the ’041 Patent (below), Dr. Levy
`
`testified that the actual identities of the workstations connected to the storage router
`
`are not relevant “from the point of view of the map.” CQ-1025, 199:2-200:17.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`’041 Patent, Fig. 3
`
`Specifically, when Dr. Levy was asked about replacing “Workstation A” in Fig. 3
`
`with a different computer, he admitted—and then confirmed during redirect—that
`
`from the point of view of the map the actual, real-world identity of computer
`
`connected to the storage router is irrelevant:
`
`A. Yes. Just to clarify, I mean, what I said was that if you have a map in
`which workstation A is represented by a SCSI ID 0 or 4 -- take your pick
`– and then you remove that computer and put another computer in its
`place which has an interface using the same SCSI ID, then from the
`point of view of the map, that system is workstation A in this case.
`
`CQ-1025, 200:10-17; see also CQ-1024 (swapping SCSI IDs of workstations).
`Accordingly, insofar as Patent Owner contends that the ’041 mapping must
`
`“precisely” identify a host in an intrinsic and permanent manner, Patent Owner’s
`
`interpretation is not supported by the specification and contradicts its own expert’s
`
`technical understanding. Patent Owner’s expert’s testimony is that the claimed map
`
`includes representations of hosts that are “sufficient to identify a host for the purposes
`
`of the mapping,” such as the AL_PA and SCSI ID identifiers. See CQ-1025, 129:16-
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`17, 124:20-125:8, 63:9-16. As such, the broadest reasonable construction of the
`
`“map” limitation must be broad enough to encompass the embodiments of the
`
`specification in which a host is represented by an intermediary identifier that is
`
`temporarily associated with the host for communication purposes, and is not
`
`intrinsically tied to any particular host.
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner Has Improperly Narrowed the “Control
`Access” Limitation
`Like the “map” limitation, Patent Owner does not offer its own construction
`
`of the “control access” limitation. Instead, Patent Owner improperly narrows the
`
`District Court construction by reading in several requirements that exclude
`
`embodiments in the specification.
`
`Patent Owner first parrots the District Court construction stating that
`
`controlling access “refers to the use of ‘access controls’ that limit a device’s access
`
`to a specific subset of storage devices or sections of a single storage device
`
`according to a map.” Resp. at 10, compare with CQ-1026 at 14, 40. Patent Owner
`
`then asserts, however, that to meet the “control access” limitation, the prior art
`
`must additionally “provid[e] different storage access to different hosts.” Resp. at 36
`
`(emphasis added). Not only is this requirement narrower than the District Court
`
`construction (which is silent as how storage must be allocated between different
`
`hosts), but it also excludes the global storage embodiment in the specification.
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner’s reinterpretation excludes the embodiment in Fig. 3 in
`
`which the mapping controls access to shared storage called global data 65, “which
`
`can be accessed by all the workstations 58.” CQ-1001, 4:45-47 (emphasis added);
`
`CQ-1025, 165:11-14. Thus, in contrast to Patent Owner’s requirement of “different
`
`storage access to different hosts,” Fig. 3 describes the same storage access by
`
`different hosts.
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner seeks to read into the “control access” limitation
`
`a requirement that access to storage by particular hosts must be maintained
`
`between physical reconfigurations of the hosts. See Resp. at 18-19, 37-38.
`
`According to Patent Owner, if the storage accessible by hosts changes when the
`
`cables are physically reconfigured, the “access control” limitation is not met. See,
`
`e.g., Resp. at 18 (“if the administrator physically switched the cables . . . then Host
`
`#2 would now get access to Redundancy Group 0”); id. at 37-38 (“say Bill wants
`
`to get access to Lisa’s storage. All Bill has to do is connect his computer to the
`
`proper communications link . . .”). This reconfiguration requirement cannot be part
`
`of the broadest reasonable construction because not only does it lack support in the
`
`broad wording of the claim itself—“control access”—but it also contradicts the
`
`embodiments in the specification that do not themselves maintain access controls
`
`between reconfigurations. For example, when Dr. Levy was asked about the
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`consequences of reconfiguring Fig. 3 so that “Workstation A” is replaced with a
`
`different workstation assigned the same SCSI ID, as discussed above, he
`
`acknowledged that the replacement workstation would now be given access to
`
`Workstation A’s storage, thereby conceding that the access controls of Fig. 3 fail
`
`under Patent Owner’s interpretation.1 CQ-1025, 151:3-10. Accordingly, Patent
`
`Owner’s interpretation of “control access” cannot be the broadest reasonable
`
`construction because it excludes embodiments in the specification (e.g., Fig. 3) that do
`
`not maintain access controls between physical reconfigurations.
`
`As such, Petitioners respectfully submit that the “control access” limitation
`
`should be at least as broad as the District Court’s construction of “limit a device’s
`
`access to a specific subset of storage devices or sections of a single storage device
`
`according to a map.” CQ-1026 at 14, 40.
`
`C.
`
`The Cited Prior Art Teaches the Claims of the ’041 Patent
`1.
`Patent Owner Ignores the Express Teachings of the CRD-
`5500 User Manual
`In its Response, Patent Owner repeatedly asserts that the “CRD-5500
`
`Manual does not show how to map storage to particular hosts.” See, e.g., Resp. at
`
`1 This is a logical result given that the map does not actually include precise
`
`identifiers of hosts, but instead includes intermediary identifiers such as SCSI ID.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`1 (emphasis in original). Patent Owner is wrong. On its face, the CRD-5500
`
`Manual expressly and clearly teaches mapping and access control between subsets
`
`of storage (redundancy groups and RAID sets) and “particular” hosts:
`
` “By using the controller's Host LUN Mapping feature, you can assign
`
`redundancy groups to a particular host.” CQ-1004, p. 1-2 (emphasis added).
`
` “The controller's Host LUN Mapping feature makes it possible to map RAID
`
`sets differently to each host.” CQ-1004, p. 1-1 (emphasis added).
`
` “You make the same redundancy group show up on different LUNs to different
`
`hosts, or make a redundancy group visible to one host but not to another.” CQ-
`
`1004, p. 1-1 (emphasis added).
`
`Even the name of the mapping feature—“Host LUN Mapping”—confirms that the
`
`CRD-5500 was specifically designed to perform mapping and access controls on a
`
`per-host basis.
`
`Patent Owner attempts to marginalize these explicit teachings by instead
`
`focusing on the specific manner in which the CRD-5500 implements per-host
`
`mapping and access control. See, e.g., Resp. at 12-13 (“[t]he Host LUN Mapping
`
`feature does not assign storage to specific hosts, but rather assigns storage to
`
`channels (i.e., ports on the CRD-5500).”). While Patent Owner is correct that hosts
`
`are connected to the CRD-5500 via host channels, and that the Host LUN Mapping
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`utilizes the channels to map (see below), Patent Owner’s argument that “[t]he Host
`
`LUN Mapping does not include any identification of specific hosts and therefore
`
`does not—and cannot—assign specific hosts to storage” (Resp. at 13) is erroneous.
`
`In the CRD-5500, each Host LUN Mapping screen includes a distinct channel
`
`number that serves as a representation of the particular host connected to the
`
`channel. Specifically, the channel number in the Host LUN Mapping is how
`
`subsets of storage (“redundancy groups”) are allocated to the “particular” host
`
`associated to the channel:
`
`Mapping for the “HOST”
`Represented by “Channel 0”
`
`CQ-1004, p. 4-5
`(annotated)
`
`Representation
`of the host
`
`Storage mapped to host
`represented by “Channel 0”
`
`Patent Owner’s focus on the word “Channel”—as opposed to “HOST”—in
`
`the Host LUN Mapping screen is misplaced given the functional significance of
`
`the channel number as a representation of a host. Just like the SCSI ID and AL_PA
`
`in the map of the ’041 Patent, the channel number is an intermediary identifier that
`
`creates a communication path to a host, facilitating the allocation of storage to that
`
`“particular” host. The channel number serves as a representation of a host in the
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`map because it is “sufficient to identify a host for the purposes of the mapping.” CQ-
`
`1025, 129:16-17. Accordingly, the CRD-5500 Manual teaches mapping and access
`
`control between subsets of storage and “particular” hosts.
`
`2.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 20, and 37 are Invalid
`a)
`Under Any Interpretation the CRD-5500 Manual and
`HP Journal Disclose the “Map” Limitation
`
`The combination of the CRD-5500 Manual and the HP Journal render
`
`obvious the “map” limitation regardless of the particular manner in which hosts are
`
`represented in the claimed map.
`
`The “map” limitation in independent claims 1, 20, and 37 broadly recites a
`
`map to “allocate” storage to devices by “associating representations of the devices .
`
`. . with representations of storage space.” As discussed above, the CRD-5500
`
`Manual explicitly teaches allocating redundancy groups and RAID sets (i.e., storage)
`
`to particular hosts via the CRD-5500’s Host LUN Mapping feature. See, e.g., CQ-
`
`1004, p. 1-2 (“By using the controller's Host LUN Mapping feature, you can assign
`
`redundancy groups to a particular host”); see also id. at 1-1. Patent Owner attempts
`
`to dismiss the CRD-5500 Manual’s explicit disclosure of per-host mapping and
`
`access controls as the mere “effect” of the CRD-5500 configuration in which there
`
`is one host per channel. See Resp. at 30. However, this argument presumes that
`
`mapping storage on a per-host basis is somehow an unexpected result of the
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`configuration. As made clear throughout the Manual, mapping storage to
`
`“particular” hosts is the desired result of every configuration of the CRD-5500—
`
`hence the name “Host LUN Mapping.” In any event, a single configuration in the
`
`CRD-5500 Manual that discloses “assign[ing] redundancy groups to a particular
`
`host” (CQ-1004, p. 1-2) is sufficient to meet the claimed allocation of storage to
`
`hosts in the “map” limitation, regardless of any other disclosed configurations.
`
`The CRD-5500 Manual further discloses a map that associates
`
`“representations of the devices” with “representations of storage space,” as recited
`
`in the “map” limitation. As explained above, the channel number in the Host LUN
`
`Mapping is a representation of the particular host connected to the channel, and is
`
`the means by which the CRD-5500 “assign[s] redundancy groups to a particular
`
`host.” CQ-1004, p. 1-2. Like the SCSI ID and AL_PA identifiers in the map of the
`
`’041 Patent, the channel number is “sufficient to identify a host for the purposes of
`
`the mapping.” CQ-1025, 129:16-17. In each Host LUN Mapping screen, a channel
`
`number (representation of a host) is associated with redundancy groups
`
`(representations of storage space)—thereby allocating the redundancy groups to
`
`the particular host represented by the channel number. See CQ-1003 at 51-53.
`
`To the extent the CRD-5500 Manual does not disclose multiple hosts on the
`
`same transport medium, the HP Journal teaches connecting multiple hosts to a Fibre
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`Channel arbitrated loop. CQ-1006, pp. 95-96. And, as set forth in the Petition, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`
`CRD-5500 Manual and HP Journal to produce the obvious, beneficial, and predictable
`
`result of utilizing a Fibre Channel module in the CRD-5500 to communicate with
`
`multiple hosts connected to a Fibre Channel transport medium (e.g., a Fibre Channel
`
`arbitrated loop). Pet. at 17-21 (citing CQ-1003 at ¶¶ 48-57). This is especially true in
`
`light of the CRD-5500 being specifically “designed to support” Fibre Channel. See
`
`CQ-1005 at 1. These teachings combined with the knowledge of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art render obvious a map that allocates storage to multiple hosts on the
`
`same transport medium. See Autel U.S. Inc., et al. v. Bosch Automotive Service
`
`Solutions, IPR2014-00183, Paper 59 at 11 (PTAB 2015) (“For an obviousness
`
`analysis, prior art references must be ‘considered together with the knowledge of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.’”) (quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1994)). Dr. Levy’s declaration and deposition testimony confirm this.
`
`Specifically, Dr. Levy provides in his declaration a graphic illustrating how
`
`four hosts on a Fibre Channel arbitrated loop may be connected to the CRD-5500 via
`
`a Tachyon-based I/O module (i.e., the proposed combination). Ex. 2027, ¶ 92; Resp.
`
`at 35. When questioned about the operation this combination, Dr. Levy confirmed that
`
`every communication transmitted on the Fibre Channel loop identifies the sender (for
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`instance, by using the sender’s AL_PA). CQ-1025, 119:17-19, 91:9-14. He explained
`
`that, as a result, when the Tachyon chip in the CRD-5500 receives a communication
`
`from a host, the sending host would be identifiable. Id. at 119:4-25. Dr. Levy
`
`additionally testified that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would know how to create data structures implementing a desired map between
`
`storage and hosts. CQ-1025, 220:4-14, 93:24-94:12. Accordingly, based on the
`
`testimony of Patent Owner’s own expert, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`know how to physically combine the references, know how such a combination
`
`would identify particular hosts on a Fibre Channel arbitrated loop, and would be able
`
`to create data structures implementing the CRD-5500’s goal of “assign[ing]
`
`redundancy groups to a particular host.” CQ-1004 at 1-2. Petitioners’ expert Dr.
`
`Hospodor reached this same conclusion: “any hardware or software modifications to
`
`the components of the CRD-5500 necessary to keep them operating in their
`
`intended manner would have been well within the skills of one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art.” CQ-1003, ¶ 56.
`
`Therefore, the combination of the CRD-5500 Manual and the HP Journal
`
`renders obvious the “map” limitation under any construction regardless of the
`
`particular manner in which hosts are represented in the claimed map.
`
`b)
`
`Under Any Interpretation the CRD-5500 Manual and
`HP Journal Disclose the “Control Access” Limitation
`16
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`The combination of the CRD-5500 Manual and the HP Journal renders
`
`obvious the “access control” limitation under both the District Court’s construction
`
`and Patent Owner’s improperly narrow construction that requires “providing
`
`different storage access to different hosts.” Resp. at 35.
`
`First, as discussed above, the “control access” limitation in independent
`
`claims 1, 20, and 37 is broadly worded—“control access”—and should be
`
`interpreted as least as broadly as the District Court construction of “limit a device’s
`
`access to a specific subset of storage devices or sections of a single storage device
`
`according to a map.” CQ-1026 at 14, 40. In that regard, the CRD-5500 Manual
`
`explicitly teaches using the Host LUN Mapping to “make a redundancy group
`
`visible to one host but not to another.” CQ-1004, p. 1-1, 4-5. Patent Owner asserts
`
`that these explicit teachings are “irrelevant” when multiple hosts are connected to
`
`the CRD-5500 by a common communication link, as purportedly illustrated in Dr.
`
`Levy’s bodily incorporation of Petitioners’ combination. See Resp. at 35-36; but
`
`see In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[A] determination of
`
`obviousness is based not on bodily incorporation of parts from one disclosed
`
`system into another”). However, even Dr. Levy’s simplistic bodily incorporation
`
`still meets the “control access” limitation. Specifically, as confirmed by Dr. Levy
`
`during his deposition, each of the commonly-connected hosts is permitted access
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`to the green subsets of storage but is denied access to the white subsets of storage
`
`in accordance with the Host LUN Mapping—i.e., each host’s access to storage is
`
`limited based on the mapping. CQ-1025, 164:17-165:2.
`
`Second, even under Patent Owner’s overly narrow interpretation that
`
`requires different storage for each host, the combination of the CRD-5500 Manual
`
`and the HP Journal render obvious the “control access” limitation. As explained
`
`above in association with the “map” limitation, an obvious analysis is not
`
`performed in a vacuum and must take into account the knowledge of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. See IPR2014-00183, Paper 59 at 11. Here, Patent Owner’s
`
`allegation that Petitioners’ combination cannot provide different storage to different
`
`hosts on the same communication link is erroneously based on Dr. Levy’s simplistic
`
`bodily incorporation (Resp. at 35) that does not take into account (i) that a Tachyon
`
`chip in a CRD-5500 can distinguish between hosts on an arbitrated loop (CQ-1025,
`
`119:4-25), (ii) the CRD-5500 Manual’s teaching of per-host access controls (CQ-
`
`1004 at 1-1), and (iii) a person of ordinary skill in the art’s knowledge of how to
`
`create the data structures necessary to map between hosts and storage when given the
`
`functional requirement of per-host access controls (CQ-1025, 220:4-14, 93:24-94:12).
`
`See also CQ-1003 (Dr. Hospodor’s declaration), ¶ 56. When this knowledge is taken
`
`into account, the combination of the CRD-5500 Manual and the HP Journal render
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01463
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`obvious providing different access to different hosts on the same transport medium.
`
`Patent Owner further attempts to show that the CRD-5500 does not disclose
`
`the “control access” limitation by using several straw man hypotheticals involving
`
`physical reconfiguration of hosts attached to the CRD-5500. See, e.g., Resp. at 18
`
`(“if the administrator physically switched the cables . . . then Host #2 would now
`
`get access to Redundancy Group 0”); id. at 37-38 (“say Bill wants to get access to
`
`Lisa’s storage. All Bill has to do is connect his computer to the proper
`
`communications link . . .”). In each hypothetical, Patent Owner assumes the
`
`administrator making the configuration changes would not also make
`
`corresponding changes in the map—a wrong assumption according to Patent
`
`Owner’s own expert. CQ-1025, 152:23-25 (“The administrator is aware of which
`
`workstation is being connected and takes