throbber
IPR2014-01226, Paper No. 50
`IPR2014-01463, Paper No. 48
`IPR2014-01544, Paper No. 49
`December 1, 2015
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., QUANTUM CORP., ORACLE
`CORP., DOT HILL SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 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 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, 9th Floor, Hearing Room
`D, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`

`
`Cases: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`KEITH A. RUTHERFORD, ESQUIRE
`JAMES H. HALL, ESQUIRE
`Blank & Rome, LLP
`717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
`Houston, Texas 77002
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANDREW S. EHMKE, ESQUIRE
`DAVID L. McCOMBS, ESQUIRE
`SCOTT T. JARRATT, ESQUIRE
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3100
`Dallas, Texas 75202-3789
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Cases: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE POWELL: Good morning. This is the oral
`hearing for three related cases: IPR2014-01226, which involves
`patent 6,425,035 B2; IPR2014-01463 which involves patent
`7,943,041 B2; and IPR2014-01544 which involves patent
`7,051,147 B2.
`We have also some IPRs that have been joined with
`these proceedings. IPR2015-00825 has been joined with
`IPR2014-01226. IPR2015-00854 has been joined with
`IPR2014-01463. And IPR2015-00852 has been joined with
`IPR2014-01554.
`In the hearing room with me I have Judges Lee and
`Cherry. And joining us from Denver we have Judge Kalan. With
`that, can counsel please state your names for the record.
`MR. McCOMBS: Your Honors, I'm David McMombs,
`lead counsel for Cisco and Quantum in this proceeding, along
`with the joint petitioners Oracle and Dot Hill. With me is
`Andrew Ehmke and Scott Jarratt. Andy Ehmke will be doing our
`presentation today.
`With us we also have client representatives for Cisco
`and Oracle and also their District Court trial counsel in
`attendance as well. Thank you.
`JUDGE POWELL: Thank you.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`

`
`Cases: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`MR. RUTHERFORD: Your Honor, Keith Rutherford
`for Crossroads, the patent owner. With me at counsel table is
`also James Hall. We likewise have members of Crossroads here.
`Our CEO and COO are here as well. Sorry, lead counsel is Steve
`Sprinkle, by the way, also here.
`JUDGE POWELL: Thank you. Let me start by
`addressing the joint list of objections to demonstrative exhibits.
`Having reviewed and considered the list, we are going to allow
`both parties to use any of their demonstratives in today's hearing.
`We will carefully consider which evidence and arguments have
`been properly presented when we prepare our final decisions for
`these cases.
`Per the trial hearing order each party will have
`60 minutes to present arguments for the subject cases. Petitioners
`will go first and may reserve time for rebuttal. Patent owner will
`then respond to petitioners’ presentation and petitioners may use
`any remaining time to respond to patent owner's presentation.
`One important point to note is, as noted in the hearing
`order, while you are presenting, you must identify each
`demonstrative exhibit clearly and specifically such as by slide
`number or screen number. That's particularly important for Judge
`Kalan who cannot see the projection screen from Denver.
`With that, do we have any questions before we start?
`MR. RUTHERFORD: No, Your Honor.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Cases: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`MR. HALL: Your Honor, we have our hard copies of
`our presentation for you.
`JUDGE POWELL: Sure. Why don't you bring those
`
`up.
`
`MR. JARRATT: We do as well.
`JUDGE POWELL: Okay. Is everybody ready? Let's
`start with petitioner. Would you like to reserve time?
`MR. EHMKE: Yes, Your Honor, I would like to
`reserve 20 minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE POWELL: When you are ready.
`MR. EHMKE: Again, my name is Andy Ehmke of
`Haynes and Boone here on behalf of the petitioners, Cisco
`Systems and Quantum Corporation, as well as the consolidated
`petitioners Oracle Corporation and Dot Hill Systems. As Your
`Honor mentioned, we are discussing U.S. patent number
`6,425,035, 7,934,041 and 7,051,147.
`And the two main issues we'll be talking about today, as
`we proceed to slide number 2, is it is our position that patent
`owner has improperly narrowed the map and access control
`limitations found in the claims across the three patents using their
`arguments that are importing additional limitations into the
`claims that we think are not the proper broadest reasonable
`contraction of the claim terms.
`But regardless of the interpretation, whether we apply
`the broadest reasonable construction of patent owner's improperly
`
`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: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`narrowed construction, that the prior art of record, the CRD
`manual and the HP Journal and their teachings disclose and
`render obvious the claims of the '035, '041 and '147 patents.
`As we proceed, to just briefly discuss the three patents
`on slide 3 and then quickly moving to slide 4, what we have here
`is a figure from the patents. Now, we are referring to the '035
`patent here, but the patents have a common specification. So we
`are using the '035 as shorthand for today's proceedings.
`This is Figure 3. And what we see in Figure 3 are a
`number of workstations on the left designated by Element 58.
`They are coupled to a storage router in the middle designated as
`Element 56. And on the right-hand side are a number of storage
`devices, Elements 60, 62 and 64. And the focus of today's
`dispute is about the storage router and some of its features, in
`particular its mapping limitation as well as its access controls of
`how its mapping workstations on the left and storage on the right
`and how it's controlling access of the storage by the workstations
`on the left.
`Proceed to the next slide, we see how this manifests
`itself in the claim. We are on slide 5. Here is an example claim
`from the '035. Now, what we are focusing on here are the last
`key remaining issues, the mapping limitation and the implement
`access controls limitation. And we see the language here is quite
`broad, it's operable to map between. There's no specificity with
`respect to the mapping. And we see the access controls is
`
`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: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`implement access controls with no specificity as to how to
`implement the access controls. You simply implement the access
`controls.
`If we move on to slide 6 we see in the '041 patent we
`are maintaining a map to allocate storage. Now, this map is using
`representations of hosts and representations of storage. And then
`the access control is controlling access without any specificity as
`to how the access is controlled.
`Again, if we turn to slide 7 in the '147 patent, we see
`again the mapping limitation is simply maps between the device
`and the controls are implement access controls.
`Now, if we look at the next slide, as we look at what the
`prior art teaches at a high level, slide 8, moving on to slide 9, we
`see the disclosure from the CRD manual. Now, what the CRD
`manual teaches is for your central controller, in this case, the
`CRD-5500 device, it provides a host LUN mapping feature. With
`this mapping feature, you can assign redundancy groups to a
`particular host. Now, in the terminology of the CRD manual a
`redundancy group is a subset of storage. It could be a partition.
`It could be a RAID set. It could be a number of hard drives. So
`when we see redundancy groups, we are talking about a bit of
`storage. So the mapping feature is assigning storage to a
`particular host. And if we look under the access control
`paragraphs, we see this manifests itself again. We see that the
`host LUN mapping feature makes it possible to map rate sets,
`
`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: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`storage, to map rate sets differently to each host. That's the
`teaching of the CRD manual.
`Now, what this feature provides, because we have the
`mapping of the RAID sets differently to each host is that we can
`now make some of these storage, these redundancy groups visible
`to one host but not to another. We can control the access.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Excuse me. So how does the CRD
`manual define host? Do they tell us anything about what a host
`is?
`
`MR. EHMKE: The host in the CRD are simply
`computers or workstations, Your Honor.
`JUDGE CHERRY: I mean, well, your opponent has
`argued that while it does say this, what it's really teaching is that
`it's teaching mapping to a particular channel. And so why would
`a person of ordinary skill understand this to mean a computer
`when it's -- when they are saying that it's talking about channels?
`MR. EHMKE: Absolutely. In the mapping of the
`CRD, what it's doing is it has this mapping, we've got the
`redundancy groups. This is the map feature and I'm sorry, we are
`referring to slide 25. I'll pause for a second there for Judge
`Kalan. We are looking at slide 25.
`In the mapping of the CRD, it's mapping it -- this is a
`host LUN mapping feature and it's mapping it to a representation
`of the host that it calls a channel number. It's a number that's
`used to identify the host associated with that channel. We have a
`
`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
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Cases: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`host, we have a cable, we have a number that identifies that host
`because it's associated with that cable with that host. So we have
`a map for the host represented by channel 0. We have a map
`represented by channel 1 for another host.
`So the nomenclature of mapping to the device versus
`mapping to the channel, I think, is a little bit of wordsmithing,
`because when we look at the patent with respect to the mapping
`to the device, we are not taking the physical computer and
`inserting it into a virtual map inside the controller. We are not
`taking the device. So it's not really mapping to the device. It's
`mapping to a representation of the device, an identifier of the
`device. The identifier could be a SCSI address, a fiber channel
`address, some other identifier. When we are talking about
`mapping to a device, we are talking about mapping to a
`representation of the device, an identifier of the device so that we
`can facilitate routing access controls.
`JUDGE KALAN: Excuse me. Is the device of the
`claims different than the host or the workstation you just
`discussed?
`MR. EHMKE: No, Your Honor. The term device host
`and workstation are used interchangeably throughout the
`specification and the claims. So the notion of mapping to the
`device is really mapping to an identifier or a representation of the
`device. And the channel number in the CRD performs the same
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Cases: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`feature. It's a number, the mapping used to route the storage
`information to the respective hosts.
`JUDGE LEE: As I understand it, there is no real
`dispute about what the CRD manual teaches and how that works
`as between the parties. Both parties seem to agree that the CRD
`manual teaches mapping between a redundancy group and a host
`channel. And it's simply your argument that that meets the
`limitation of what mapping is and the opposing party disagrees
`with that. So it seems to me to really boil down to the claim
`construction of mapping. So I would appreciate if you could
`address what does the intrinsic evidence indicate the proper scope
`of mapping would be?
`MR. EHMKE: Absolutely, Your Honor. So we'll turn
`to slide 13, then, moving on to 14. The first piece of evidence is
`going to be the claim language itself. We see here with respect to
`the '035 patent that the claim language is saying it's operable to
`map between devices. There's no specificity in this claim
`language about what has to be in the map, what type of
`characteristics the identifiers have to have in the map, what
`features or functionality or even how it's operable to map
`between. Likewise, we have maps between the device. No
`specificity at all with respect to the claim language of what's
`required to meet the map limitation.
`And then we have the '041 which has extra words but
`isn't really saying a whole lot more. It's allocating storage space
`
`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: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`by associating representations of the devices. And if we look to
`the specification, we'll go to slide 15, the specification is likewise
`as broad. The specification is saying allocate storage to each
`workstation using mapping tables or other mapping techniques.
`There's no specificity here. They are relying on the knowledge of
`a person of ordinary skill in the art as to just use whatever
`mapping technique you desire. They don't claim it and they don't
`require it in their specification.
`We asked their expert during the deposition, was there
`anything that we are missing with respect to this? Is there
`anything specific in the specification about these mapping tables
`or mapping techniques? He says, no, there's nothing specific
`disclosed in the patent.
`That is why our position is the broadest reasonable
`construction because what the Board has adopted, if we go to
`slide 16, is simply allocating storage. There's no requirements.
`There's no special techniques. There's no characteristics required
`in the claims or described in the specification.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Well, I don't think the dispute is
`necessarily about what particular technique is used. It's about
`what is actually mapped in terms of does it have to be a particular
`device or not. And I think to the extent it does say each attached
`workstation, would that indicate that that's a particular device?
`MR. EHMKE: I would argue no, Your Honor. There's
`nothing wrong with having a representation of a plurality of
`
`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: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`devices. Each device could be represented by a single
`representation. For example, you could have the accounting
`department represented by a single representation and control
`their access to the accounting department's data while restricting
`their access to the HR department's data. There's no requirement
`within the claims nor description specification that mandates that
`the mapping have a unique representation for each host nor that
`each host must have its own specific unique representation.
`JUDGE LEE: Is there anything in the specification that
`indicates that the claims contemplate or include the claimed
`device that's being mapped to be multiple hosts or multiple
`workstations?
`MR. EHMKE: I'm sorry, that requires that the
`representation applied to multiple devices?
`JUDGE LEE: Not requires necessarily, but does the
`intrinsic record indicate whether or not the term "device," the one
`that's being mapped in these claims, whether that could
`encompass a group of hosts or a group of workstations all
`together comprising the claimed device? Is that something that's
`within the scope of the claims?
`MR. EHMKE: If we could turn to the claim language
`
`again --
`
`JUDGE CHERRY: I think what Judge Lee is trying to
`get at is the group, is there any -- I mean, you have got to point
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Cases: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`out that it doesn't exclude that. Is there anything that indicates
`that it's encompassed within that?
`MR. EHMKE: I do not recall there is any specific
`disclosure of representing a plurality of hosts. But I also would
`point out there's nothing in the specification that requires patent
`owner’s desired limitation of having unique representations for
`every host in all situations, particularly given the breadth of the
`claims.
`
`I would also argue that this argument by patent owner is
`importing a preferred embodiment into the specification which
`would be an improper narrowing of the claims.
`JUDGE KALAN: In the claims, in each of these
`separate patents, I'm looking at claim 1 in each of the patents,
`devices are identified differently, sometimes plural and in the
`case of the '147 patent singular. Is that significant?
`MR. EHMKE: I think it is, Your Honor. When we
`look at the language of the claims, again, that's a position we start
`with, the language of the claims. Because it says map between
`devices connected to the first transport medium and the storage
`devices, again, there's nothing that limits the claim that the
`mapping has to be a one-to-one correlation. We are mapping
`between the devices. So I think even with that claim construction
`or claim terminology, we can map between two devices to the
`first transport media in the storage devices. There's nothing
`wrong with saying we can map two devices to one storage device.
`
`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
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Cases: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`We could map a department to its data. The claims support that
`reading, yes.
`JUDGE CHERRY: I think they have kind of pointed us
`to Figure 1 which shows one device to one storage group. What
`is your response to that -- I'm sorry, not Figure 1. Figure 3.
`MR. EHMKE: Our response to that is Figure 3 is
`specifically designated as an embodiment of the invention. It's
`not the invention itself. They even actually refer to Figure 3 and
`say there are many different configurations associated with it.
`You can change the type of protocol associated with it. You can
`change the type of hosts. It's not the invention. The specification
`does not limit the invention to that embodiment. We are looking
`at the claims as they are written and they are written broader in
`the embodiments disclosed in Figure 3.
`JUDGE LEE: I would like to ask you a question about
`the CRD manual and the system it describes. You put up a figure
`earlier, I believe it was slide 25, from that manual and you point
`to Channel 0. This entire table relates to Channel 0. You point to
`Channel 0 as corresponding to the host or the claimed device. I'm
`just trying to understand how this works. What does a host LUN
`represent if the entire channel is a single host?
`MR. EHMKE: Yes, Your Honor. What the host LUN
`is, from the host's perspective, this is a virtualized system. So
`from the host's perspective, it thinks, as much as a computer can
`think, it thinks it's writing to a piece of storage. And when it's
`
`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: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`writing, it's referring to host LUN. So the host on Channel 0 is
`going to say, I want to write data to host LUN 5. That comes in,
`the mapping for that host, because the host is on Channel 0. That
`mapping is then looked up and it says, this host wanted to write
`data or read data from host LUN 5. Let's see what actual piece of
`storage it can read or write to. And it sees, oh, wait, 5 is not
`associated with a particular redundancy group. I'm going to
`control its access and not permit that read or write request.
`Now, if the host on Channel 0 says I want to read from
`host LUN 14, that request comes in on Channel 0. The system
`says, oh, I should use the mapping for Channel 0. It grabs the
`mapping and says this request was for host LUN 14. Which hard
`drive, which partition is that associated with? For host LUN 14,
`its correspondence is to redundancy group 14. And then it
`executes the read or write command with respect to that particular
`hard drive.
`So it's virtualizing the hard drive on the right-hand side,
`if you will, using the redundancy group representations. And
`then the host, which is represented by Channel 0, is using another
`virtualizing layer of the host LUN map numbers. Does that
`answer your question?
`JUDGE LEE: Yes, it does. Thank you.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Wait. Just so I understand, the host
`LUNs, would those correspond to kind of, you know, like a D
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Cases: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`drive and would those be various drives that are represented on
`the host?
`
`MR. EHMKE: Yes. Use an example, Your Honor, you
`could theoretically say that the host associated with Channel 0,
`that host might think it's writing to the D drive. We'll think of D
`drive as the host LUN value using this example. It's not quite
`correct, but I think it applies for this example. So that host is
`going to write, in its mind, to drive D. That drive D is the host
`LUN. So that's host LUN 14. Host LUN 14 corresponds to hard
`drive 14. And so when the host writes its command, it's pulled
`because it's on Channel 0. That's its representation. It then says,
`okay, that write command was for D which corresponds to host
`LUN 14 which corresponds to redundancy group 14, and the
`command is sent to the appropriate storage device at the other end
`of the system.
`Any further questions on the host LUN mapping?
`JUDGE POWELL: No, but I have a question about
`this. I'm looking at slide 14 again. Could you address, if I were
`to decide that I believe -- and I'm looking at differences between
`the claim languages in the various patents here. If I decide that
`the CRD reference manual maintains a map to allocate storage
`space on the remote storage devices, what about -- how do you
`address the limitation of representations of the devices connected
`to the first transport medium? So, I gather that in some fashion
`the channel number is a representation of the device.
`
`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: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`MR. EHMKE: That's correct.
`JUDGE POWELL: Can you elaborate on that any?
`MR. EHMKE: Sure. A couple of points with respect to
`your question. We have the three claims up here and in terms of
`how they have been argued and presented in this proceeding, they
`have actually been argued in terms of a coextensive claim
`construction matter the way the patent owner has argued them.
`So while we do have different terminology, we believe the claim
`scope is essentially the same across all three.
`Now, with respect to your particular question on the
`'041 about the associating representations of the devices, our
`position on that is, again, the CRD has the mapping and there is a
`number in that mapping that is called the channel number. That
`number is a representation of a host. When that communication
`from the host comes in, it's going to use that channel number to
`grab the corresponding map and apply the redundancy group
`analysis and make sure that has access to the hosts.
`Yes, we believe that the channel number qualifies as the
`representation. And again, the claim language doesn't say what
`type of representation is required. The specification doesn't
`require a particular type or manner of representation. And that
`was the focus of my earlier discussion about the mapping
`techniques is, again, the specification isn't requiring or mandating
`a particular type of mapping technique. No requirement as to the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Cases: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`particular type of representation either. It's simply a number used
`in a mapping so that we know which host and which map to use.
`JUDGE LEE: Is the channel number a representation of
`the device or simply the device's location? And if it's the latter,
`does that matter? Because what Crossroads seems to be arguing
`is that it's a port number, essentially. It tells you where to route
`things. It tells you where the associated host might be. But if
`you take that computer, the computer number 5, you move it to a
`different channel, the storage router won't know the difference.
`MR. EHMKE: That is precisely their argument. And
`the reason why we believe that argument fails is because that's
`looking at the CRD in a vacuum. The proposed ground has never
`been anticipation over the CRD. It is not about the CRD-5500
`system as it exists. The argument has been from the beginning
`it's obvious in view of the teachings of the CRD when combined
`with the Hewlett-Packard Journal.
`So what we have with respect to the -- so the initial
`teaching, the first teaching that's part of the ground of rejection is
`the mapping feature that uses the channel number as a
`representation. So it's teaching user representation in the
`mapping. And with that representation, we assign the storage to
`particular hosts. We assign map rates differently for each host.
`That's the baseline teaching of we are mapping storage differently
`to each host using representations of the hosts, but we are
`combining that with the Hewlett-Packard Journal. The HP
`
`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: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`Journal is disclosing that you can take a plurality of SCSI devices
`and put them all on a single fibre channel loop. And so now we
`have a teaching where we have a combined system using the
`teachings of we have a host LUN mapping feature that's assigning
`redundancy groups differently to each hosts, but now those hosts
`are on a single fibre channel loop.
`The HP Journal also discloses that one of the features of
`it is that you can retain the initial input/output services associated
`with your underlying --
`JUDGE CHERRY: Is this in your petition?
`MR. EHMKE: It absolutely is in our petition.
`JUDGE CHERRY: Where is it in your petition?
`MR. EHMKE: So as we discussed, we see these are
`citations from our petition here with respect to the baseline
`teachings of the CRD. Then on page 19, Your Honor, we further
`discuss specifically the teachings -- and I have pulled up the
`petition. It's paper 3 in the 01226 proceeding, and we are looking
`on page 19 to start here. That's what's on the screen, page 19
`from the petition in the '035.
`Here we talk about the features and services provided
`by the CRD system. We are talking about the mapping, the
`allocation, the controlling of the access. Then if we scroll down,
`we say here in connection with the talking about the combination
`of applying the CRD's teachings with the Hewlett-Packard
`Journal, we specifically say that you would do this because you
`
`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: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`are going to resolve the slots problem because it supports the
`same input/output services with a fewer number of slots. So we
`want to maintain the input/output services but just use less slots.
`And an additional feature of it is because we are taking
`all these individual computers and we are putting them all on the
`same loop, we need to handle addressability. That's a feature
`described in the Hewlett-Packard Journal. It's providing
`increased addressability even though we are putting them all on
`the same fibre channel loop.
`We went further. As we scroll down to page 25 of the
`petition, we said then on top of that, we have the baseline
`teachings. We are teaching using the mapping. We are teaching
`that you want the same input/output services. You are just going
`to use less cards. We said then you would make modifications to
`the components of the CRD-5500 necessary to keep them
`operating in their intended manner.
`Again, the whole point of this discussion has been about
`maintaining the mapping of the redundancy groups differently to
`each host and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be
`able the make those necessary modifications.
`We outline all of this in the initial position of combining
`the teachings of the Hewlett-Packard Journal onto the CRD-5500.
`The resulting combined system would be a system that maps
`redundancy groups differently to each host where all those hosts
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Cases: IPR2014-01226, IPR2014-01463, IPR2014-01544
`Patents: 6,425,035 B2, 7,934,041 B2, 7,051,147 B2
`
`are on a single fibre channel loop. This was not a new argument.
`It was presented from the beginning.
`Now, what the patent owner is latching onto in their
`slides, Your Honors, is we asked further questions of their own
`expert with respect to would a person of ordinary skill in the art
`have this knowledge to make these modifications? And he
`actually walked through some of the things that he might do. He
`talked about, oh, yeah, the Tachyon chip, which is disclosed in
`the Hewlett-Packard Journal, does have the ability to distinguish
`and identify among the hosts. That's what we are talking about
`here. He confirmed the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill
`in the art, confirmed that a person of skill in the art would be able
`to make the modifications to the CRD to keep them operating in
`their intended manner.
`JUDGE CHERRY: But you didn't describe those
`modifications in your petition, right?
`MR. EHMKE: We described that we would make the
`modifications to the components. We described all of the
`teachings necessary. We didn't build the system. Patent owner's
`questions are -- one of their examples is did you modify the
`firmware. There's no requirement to implement the system. The
`teaching associated with this is that we have redundancy groups
`that were mapping the hosts using the structure. The test for
`obviousness is not whether the features may be bodily
`incorporated resulting in the system, and we actually cited this 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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket