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 IPR2014-01544
`Patent No. 7,051,147
`____________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. AND QUANTUM CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01544
`Patent No. 7,051,147
`____________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`II. HISTORY OF THE ’972 PATENT FAMILY ................................................. 3
`III. TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED BECAUSE THE OFFICE
`HAS CONSIDERED THE CITED ART. ...................................................... 10
`A. The Patent Office has already considered the CRD-5500 Manual,
`CRD-5500 Data Sheet, and the HP Journal during prosecution of
`the ’147 Patent. ........................................................................................... 11
`B. The Patent Office has already considered the CRD-5500 Manual,
`CRD-5500 Data Sheet and HP Journal during reexaminations. ................ 12
`C. The Patent Office confirmed the ’035, ’972, and ’753 Patents over
`the same arguments. .................................................................................... 20
`IV. TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED BECAUSE THE OFFICE IS
`CONSIDERING SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME PETITION .................... 24
`V. TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED BECAUSE PETITIONERS
`HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED THAT PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED
`TO RELIEF ..................................................................................................... 31
`A. The Petition fails to show how the construed claim is unpatentable. ......... 31
`B. The Petition fails to establish the differences between the patent and
`the prior art. ................................................................................................. 33
`C. One of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the CRD-5500
`User Manual and HP Journal in the manner urged by Petitioners. ........... 35
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 37
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Crossroads Systems (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc.
` 56 Fed. Appx. 502 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................................................................... 4
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
` 383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 33
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 34
`
`Administrative Cases
`
`Butamax Advancd Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.
`
`IPR2014-00581, Paper 8 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014) .......................................... 25, 28
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.
`
`IPR2013-00324, Paper 19 (PTAB Nov. 21, 2013) ............................................. 31
`
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.
` CBM-2012-00003, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) ...................................... 33, 34
`
`Naughty Dog, Inc. v. McRO, Inc.
`
`IPR2014-00197, Paper 11 (PTAB May 28, 2014) ............................................. 34
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC
`
`IPR2014-00702, Paper 32 (PTAB July. 24, 2014) ....................................... 25, 30
`
`Other Authorities
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................................................................. 2, 33, 34, 35
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c) ................................................................................................ 19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c) .............................................................................................. .. 1937 C.F.R. § 1.104(c) .............................................................................................. .. 19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) ...................................................................................... 2, 33, 35
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) .................................................................................... .. 2, 33, 3537 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) .................................................................................... .. 2, 33, 35
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................... 2, 31, 32
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................. ..2, 31, 3237 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................. ..2, 31, 32
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,612 (Aug. 14, 2012) ..................................................................... 30
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,612 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................... .. 3077 Fed. Reg. 48,612 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................... .. 30
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ..................................................................... 10
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................... .. 1077 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................... .. 10
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`iiiiii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`United States Patent No. 7,051,147 (the “’147 Patent”, Ex. CQ-1001) is
`
`currently subject to the following related litigation that are joined for purposes of
`
`claim construction and discovery: Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., Case
`
`No. 1:13-CV-00895-SS (W.D. Tex.), Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Huawei
`
`Technologies Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:13-CV-01025-SS (W.D. Tex.),
`
`Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:14-CV-00148-SS
`
`(W.D. Tex.), Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. NetApp, Inc., Case No. 1:14-CV-00149-
`
`SS (W.D. Tex.), Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Quantum Corp., Case No. 1:14-CV-
`
`00150-SS (W.D. Tex.). Defendants Oracle Corporation, NetApp, Inc. and Huawei
`
`Technologies Co., Ltd (collectively “First Petitioners”) filed two petitions for inter
`
`partes review of the ’147 Patent on July 25, 2014 (collectively, the “First Two
`
`Petitions”). Oracle Corp. v. Crossroads Systems Inc., IPR2014-01207, Paper 1
`
`(PTAB July 25, 2014) (claims 14-39) (“First Petition”); Oracle Corp. v.
`
`Crossroads Systems Inc., IPR2014-01209, Paper 1 (PTAB July 25, 2014) (claims
`
`1-13) (“Second Petition”). On September 25, 2014, Cisco Systems, Inc. and
`
`Quantum Corporation (collectively “Second Petitioners” or “Petitioners”) filed a
`
`subsequent petition for inter partes review of the ’147 Patent (the “Third Petition”
`
`or “Petition”) in the instant proceeding. Patent Owner Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`
`1
`
`
`
`(“Patent Owner” or “Crossroads”) submits this Preliminary Response to the Third
`
`Petition.
`
`Petitioners assert a single obviousness challenge to the ’147 Patent:
`
`Claims 1-39 in light of the CRD-5500 SCSI RAID Controller User’s Manual
`
`(“CRD-5500 Manual”, Ex. CQ-1004), in view of Volume 47, Issue 5 Hewlett-
`
`Packard Journal (“HP Journal”, Ex. CQ-1006).1 Furthermore, although Petitioners
`
`do not include it as an explicit ground for their challenge, Petitioners also rely on
`
`Ex. CQ-1005, which they refer to as a data sheet (the “CRD-5500 Data Sheet”).
`
`Pet. at 17, 19, 21.
`
`The Third Petition fails to demonstrate that Petitioners are entitled to relief
`
`and fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). It fails to
`
`explain how each construed claims is unpatentable and fails to compare the
`
`claimed invention to a prior art reference. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(4). Furthermore, the Third Petition should be denied because it relies
`
`on prior art and arguments that have been presented to the Office on at least three
`
`previous occasions. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Because of these deficiencies, the Third
`
`
`1 The Table of Contents for the Third Petition refers to “Claims 1-14, 16-33, 35-50
`
`and 53”. Patent Owner assumes that this was an error.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petition should be denied.
`
`II. HISTORY OF THE ’972 PATENT FAMILY
`U.S. Patent No. 5,941,972 (the “’972 Patent”, Ex. 2001) issued on August
`
`24, 1999. The ’972 Patent is the progenitor of a number of U.S. and foreign
`
`patents, one of which is the ’147 Patent challenged here. The specifications of
`
`the ’147 and ’972 patents are identical, save the discussion of related applications.
`
`Other children of the ’972 patent include U.S. Patent Nos. 6,425,035 (the “’035
`
`Patent”, Ex. 2026); 7,934,041 (the “’041 Patent”); and 7,987,311 (the “’311
`
`Patent”). Like the ’147 Patent, these patents are currently the subject of similar, if
`
`not redundant, petitions for inter partes review filed by First and Second
`
`Petitioners, all of which are defendants in on-going litigation pending in the
`
`Western District of Texas.2
`
`At the time of the invention in May 1997, inventors Geoff Hoese and Jeffery
`
`Russell were engineers employed by Patent Owner, Crossroads Systems in Austin,
`
`Texas. Crossroads, founded in 1996, develops advanced storage products, has
`
`been awarded more than 100 patents, and created the storage router market. To
`
`protect its intellectual property, Crossroads began enforcing its rights to the
`
`2 Eight petitions are pending against these patents: IPR2014-01177, -01197,
`
`-01207, -01209, -01226, -01233, -01463, and -01544.
`
`3
`
`
`
`inventions claimed in the ’972 Patent and its progeny in 2000. That year,
`
`Crossroads sued Chaparral Network Storage in the Western District of Texas for
`
`infringing the ’972 Patent. Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral
`
`Network Storage, Inc., C.A. No. 1:00-cv-00217 (W.D. Tex. – Austin Div., filed
`
`March 31, 2000).
`
`After the district court denied Chaparral’s motion for summary judgment of
`
`invalidity based on Kikuchi, the case proceeded to trial. Ex. 2002. The jury found
`
`Chaparral liable for infringement and returned a verdict in favor of Crossroads,
`
`whereupon a final judgment was entered. Ex. 2003. The judgment was appealed
`
`to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed. Crossroads Systems (Texas), Inc. v.
`
`Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., 56 Fed. Appx. 502 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`Since filing the Chaparral case, Crossroads has sued other entities to
`
`enforce patents in the ’972 Patent family. Although none have since proceeded to
`
`trial, the district court has issued claim construction opinions in the following
`
`cases:
`
`Lead Defendant
`
`Case No.
`
`Patent-in-Suit Markman Order
`
`Chaparral Network
`Storage, Inc.
`
`Pathlight
`Technology, Inc.
`
`Dot Hill Systems
`Corp.
`
`1:00-cv-00217
`
`5,941,972
`
`Ex. 2004
`
`
`1:00-cv-00248
`
`5,941,972
`
`Ex. 2004
`
`1:03-cv-00754
`
`5,941,972 and
`6,425,035
`
`Exs. 2005; 2006
`
`4
`
`
`
`3PAR, Inc.
`
`1:10-cv-00652
`
`6,425,035 and
`7,051,147
`
`Exs. 2007; 2008
`
`
`
`During the Dot Hill case in 2004, multiple ex parte requests for
`
`reexamination of the ’035 Patent were filed, including Reexamination Control No.
`
`90/007,125 (the “’125 Reexamination”) and Reexamination Control No.
`
`90/007,317. Those two proceedings were ultimately consolidated. Ex. 2021 at
`
`238-240. At the same time, related ex parte reexaminations were also initiated,
`
`including Reexamination Control No. 90/007,124 on U.S. Patent No. 6,421,753
`
`(the “’753 Patent”, Ex. 2025), the immediate parent of the ’035 patent and ancestor
`
`of the ’147 Patent; and Reexamination Control No. 90/007,123 on the ’972 Patent,
`
`the ultimate parent.
`
`All told, over 150 references were considered during reexamination of
`
`the ’035 Patent, ’753 Patent and ’972 Patent, with approximately 100 being
`
`analyzed via detailed claim charts. The reexamination proceedings lasted over two
`
`years, from July 2004 to August 2006. After multiple office actions and responses,
`
`the ’035 Patent emerged from reexamination with all claims confirmed and
`
`unchanged. Ex. 2021 at 7.3 The Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination
`
`
`3 All claims of the ’972 and ’753 Patents were also confirmed during
`
`reexamination. E.g., Ex. 2024 at 5; Ex. 2025 at 13.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Certificate for the ’035 Patent was mailed on September 23, 2005, which was well
`
`before allowance of the ’147 Patent in January 2006.
`
`Technical Background
`
`Broadly stated, the inventions claimed in the ’147 Patent concern a device
`
`called a “storage router,” and methods for providing virtual local storage on remote
`
`storage devices to computers, while providing access controls and allowing access
`
`using native low level block protocol (“NLLBP”).
`
`Prior to the invention, host computers would access storage devices either
`
`(1) locally via a parallel bus such as a SCSI bus, or (2) remotely over a network.
`
`However, both of these prior art systems had limitations that the invention of
`
`the ’147 Patent overcomes. Computers access local storage devices using an
`
`NLLBP. Ex. CQ-1001, 1:49-51. NLLBPs allow for simple direct access to local
`
`storage in a fast efficient manner, but lack security controls. Id. at 1:51-54.
`
`NLLBPs were sent to local storage over parallel bus transport mediums, such as
`
`the SCSI bus. Id. at 1:30-35. However, such transport mediums “provide for a
`
`relatively small number of devices to be attached over relatively short distances.”
`
`Id.
`
`To overcome the deficiencies of connecting to storage over parallel busses,
`
`computers use serial network interconnects to connect to remote storage. Serial
`
`interconnects provide the capability to connect a relatively large number of devices
`
`6
`
`
`
`over larger distances. Id. at 1:36-38, 54-56.
`
`At the time of Crossroads’ invention, network servers were used to provide
`
`access to data stored on remote storage. Figure 1 of the patent shows such a
`
`network server arrangement. See generally id. at 1:54-58; 3:12-26. This
`
`arrangement, however, was slow and cumbersome, causing bottlenecks and delays
`
`when accessing data in remote storage. Remote access was slowed down, at least
`
`in part, because the computer needed to use a high level network protocol that the
`
`network server had to translate into a NLLBP request. Id. at 1:58-61. As
`
`described in the ’147 Patent, a computer accessed data at the remote network
`
`server “through high level file system protocols.” Id. at 3:29-34. The network
`
`server had to translate the high level file system requests (such as NFS or other
`
`network file system request) into NLLBPs used to communicate with the storage
`
`devices connected to the network server. Id. at 3:34-36.
`
`Because it takes the computer time to create a high level network protocol
`
`containing a file system request, and it takes the server time to re-construct a
`
`NLLBP from that network protocol (which the server needs to do to communicate
`
`with the storage device), the introduction of a network server into the system
`
`creates a bottleneck which slows down access to remote storage devices. Id. at
`
`3:27-38.
`
`Thus, prior to the present invention, those wishing to implement centralized
`
`7
`
`
`
`storage at a remote location for networked devices were forced to use a relatively
`
`slow network server solution that required the use of network protocols that
`
`included high level file system requests. These prior art systems did not provide
`
`remote storage that could be accessed at the speeds achieved by using an NLLBP.
`
`The Invention Solves the Problems Associated with Network Servers
`
`The storage router of the ’147 Patent provides the ability to control host
`
`access to remote storage, while allowing access using NLLBPs rather than high
`
`level network protocols containing file system requests. This does away with the
`
`complex and time consuming task of translating the high level network protocols
`
`into NLLBP.
`
`The Crossroads invention provides “virtual local storage.” “Virtual local
`
`storage” is storage space in a storage device that is remotely connected to a
`
`computer that appears as local storage to the computer. Id. at 4:60-66 (“Storage
`
`router 56 provides centralized control of what each workstation 58 sees as its local
`
`drive . . . . Consequently the storage space considered by the workstation 58 to be
`
`its local storage is actually a partition (i.e., logical storage definition) of a
`
`physically remote storage device 60, 62 or 64 connected through storage router
`
`56”); 4:24-26 (“This specific subset of data has the appearance and characteristics
`
`of local storage and is referred to herein as virtual local storage.”).
`
`Because the virtual local storage appears as local storage, a computer will
`
`8
`
`
`
`access its virtual local storage using the NLLBP of the virtual local storage. Id. at
`
`4:37-38 (partitions “appear to the associated workstation 58 as local storage
`
`accessed using [NLLBPs]”). The storage router thus allows access using NLLBP
`
`rather than a network protocol containing a file system request. Id. at 5:14-17
`
`(“storage access involves [NLLBPs] and does not involve the overhead of high
`
`level protocols and file systems required by network servers.”).
`
`In addition to providing the ability to locate host computers remotely,
`
`modern storage systems need to provide security between the host computers and
`
`the remote storage. In other words, it is desirable to provide a centralized control
`
`mechanism that controls each host computer’s access so that each host can only
`
`access particular remote storage devices (or portions thereof). In prior art systems,
`
`the ability to provide such a security mechanism in a networked system that
`
`allowed access using NLLBPs simply did not exist.
`
`However, the storage router of the ’147 Patent provides centralized access
`
`controls for remote storage, while allowing access using NLLBPs. Access controls
`
`provide the capability to restrict the access of a computer to a particular subset of
`
`storage. To this end, the storage router includes a map that associates
`
`representations of computers on one side of the storage router with representations
`
`of storage on the other side of the storage router. See, e.g., id. at 4:26-29, 35-38
`
`(describing “storage allocated to each attached workstation” through the map so
`
`9
`
`
`
`that allocated storage “can only be accessed by the associated workstation”)
`
`(emphasis added). The storage router implements access controls according to the
`
`map so that each computer has controlled access to the storage allocated to the
`
`computer in the map. See, e.g., id. at 4:26-29, 35-38; 4:41-44 (“[E]ach workstation
`
`58 has controlled access to only the specified partition of storage device 62 which
`
`forms virtual local storage for the workstation 58.”); 4:48-49 (“Storage router 56
`
`provides centralized control of what each workstation 58 sees as its local drive[.]”).
`
`In summary, the invention of the ’147 Patent provides a network storage
`
`solution with the ability to control a computer’s access to storage space on the
`
`remote storage devices using a map that allocates storage to the computer and
`
`allows access using NLLBPs. Thus, the invention of the ’147 Patent provides the
`
`advantages of (1) providing remote storage that has the appearance and
`
`characteristics of locally attached storage; (2) allowing access using NLLBPs; and
`
`(3) providing access controls that limit a host’s access to the storage allocated to
`
`the host in the map. The prior art cited by Petitioners, alone or in combination,
`
`simply does not teach or suggest such a system.
`
`III. TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED BECAUSE THE OFFICE
`HAS CONSIDERED THE CITED ART.
`
`As part of its consideration in determining whether a trial should be
`
`instituted, the Board “may take into account whether the same or substantially the
`
`10
`
`
`
`same prior art or arguments were previously presented to the Office.” Office Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,765 (Aug. 14, 2012); 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`Trial should not be instituted here because the CRD-5500 Manual, the CRD-5500
`
`Data Sheet, and the HP Journal are cumulative and Petitioners’ arguments are
`
`substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office.
`
`A. The Patent Office has already considered the CRD-5500 Manual,
`CRD-5500 Data Sheet, and the HP Journal during prosecution of
`the ’147 Patent.
`The CRD-5500 Manual and the substance of the HP Journal4 were
`
`submitted and considered during the prosecution of the ’147 Patent. See Ex. 1002
`
`at 382 (IDS submitting CRD-5500 User Manual, cite C5); id. at 387 (IDS
`
`submitting Tachyon User’s Manual, cite C99). Moreover, the CRD-5500 Data
`
`Sheet was submitted under
`
`the name “CRD-5500, RAID DISK ARRAY
`
`CONTROLLER Product Insert, pp. 1-5.” Id. at 142 (reference C7); Ex. 2010 at ¶ 3;
`
`compare Ex. 2011 with Ex. 1004. As discussed in Section III-B, the Smith Article
`
`is cumulative of the Tachyon User’s Manual. The Office has already considered
`
`
`4 The HP Journal contains the Smith article (Ex. CQ-1006, pp. 99-112) which is
`
`about the Tachyon chip and often cited by the Third Petition. E.g., Pet. at 18, 20-
`
`21, 24, 25, 32-34; see also section IV below. Although the Smith article was not
`
`explicitly before the Office, the Tachyon User’s Manual (Ex. 2016) was cited.
`
`11
`
`
`
`the information presented in the Petition and rejected it as a basis for challenging
`
`the claims of the ’147 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`The Patent Office has already considered the CRD-5500 Manual,
`CRD-5500 Data Sheet and HP Journal during reexaminations.
`Petitioners attempt to minimize the significance of the CRD-5500 Manual
`
`by focusing only on the prosecution of the ’147 patent, asserting that “it appears
`
`that during the course of the prosecution of the ’147 Patent, the Patent Office never
`
`substantively considered the relevance of the CRD Manual or the HP Journal.”
`
`Pet. at 8. However, Petitioners fail to disclose the fact that the CRD-5500 Manual
`
`was one of the few references expressly identified and analyzed in the
`
`reexamination request of the related ’035 Patent (90/007,125). See Ex. 2021 at 310.
`
`Petitioners never explain that the requester stated that “[t]he CRD-5500 includes
`
`every element described in the ‘035 Patent. Features . . . are explained in the CRD-
`
`5500 SCSI RAID Controller User’s Manual, Rev. 1.3, published November 21,
`
`1996, which is included as Exhibit 15.” Id. at 321 (emphasis in original).5 Thus,
`
`the CRD-5500 Manual was substantively considered, being expressly argued to the
`
`
`5 See also Ex. 2024 at 35 (“The CRD-5500 includes all the elements described in
`
`the ‘972 Patent except for the addition of Fibre Channel to the host interface,
`
`which is an obvious addition.”)
`
`12
`
`
`
`Office during reexamination of a related patent directed to the same subject matter.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 2021 at 310, 337-38, 345; Ex. 2024 at 35-36, 55-56.6
`
`Petitioners’ alleged motivation to modify the teachings of the CRD-5500
`
`Manual was also before the Patent Office. Petitioners argue that “persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art were informed that the CRD-5500 RAID Controller was
`
`specifically ‘designed to support tomorrow’s high speed serial interfaces such as
`
`Fiberchannel.’” Pet. at 19 (citing CQ-1005, p. 1). This brochure was submitted to
`
`and considered by the Examiner during the reexamination of the ’035 Patent.
`
`Ex. 2021 at 165 (cite number C3, “CRD-5500, RAID DISK ARRAY
`
`CONTROLLER Product Insert, pp. 1-5”)7; Ex. 2010 ¶ 2; compare Ex. 2011 with
`
`Ex. CQ-1005. In any case, Petitioners’ arguments regarding the advantages of
`
`Fibre Channel merely rehash the arguments presented by the requester in the
`
`reexaminations. The reexamination requester submitted numerous Fibre Channel
`
`references, including the MaxStrat GEN 5 RAID controller that “could be
`
`6 The Examiner was well aware of the Reexaminations and considered references
`
`and correspondence from the Reexaminations during prosecution of the ’147
`
`Patent. See CQ-1001 at 3; CQ-1002 at 383-84 (e.g., cite numbers C33-C50).
`
`7 Similarly, the document was submitted and considered in the reexaminations of
`
`the ’972 and ’753 Patents. E.g., Ex. 2024 at 16 (cite number C5).
`
`13
`
`
`
`configured to use combinations [of] SCSI, Fibre Channel and/or HIPPI transport
`
`media to connect to hosts.” Ex. 2021 at 318; id. at 327 (stating that the Bursky
`
`article “teaches the desirability of connecting workstations to a storage controller or
`
`router via serial interfaces, such as Fibre Channel”).8 The Office has previously
`
`considered the CRD-5500 Data Sheet and arguments regarding the desirability of
`
`using Fibre Channel with the CRD-5500.
`
`The HP Journal presents nothing that the Office has not previously seen.
`
`During reexamination, the Patent Office considered the Tachyon User’s Manual
`
`which provides a detailed description of the Tachyon chip and its capabilities.
`
`Ex. 2021 at 168 (cite no. C87); Ex. 2024 at 20 (cite no. C93).
`
`Petitioners argue that the HP Journal “teaches one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`how to implement a generic Fibre Channel I/O adapter board using the Tachyon
`
`chip.” Pet. at 20 (citing CQ-1006, pp. 101-111; Fig. 14); see also id. at 24-25
`
`(citing Fig. 14). The Tachyon User’s Manual shows a generic Fibre Channel host
`
`bus adapter board. Ex. 2016 at 23:
`
`
`8 See also Ex. 2024 at 32, 43.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners cite the Smith article in the HP Journal as showing that “SCSI
`
`commands may be ‘encapsulated and transported within Fibre Channel frames.’”
`
`Pet. at 29 (citing Ex. CQ-1006, pp. 94-95, 102); see also id. at 38, 45, 58. The
`
`Tachyon User’s Manual describes encapsulating SCSI commands and responses.
`
`See Ex. 2016 at 22 (“Provides FCP assists for SCSI initiators and targets.”), 27
`
`(describing encapsulation of SCSI commands using Fibre Channel Protocol for
`
`SCSI, and stating, for example, “[t]he Fibre Channel standards groups defined
`
`encapsulation methods for [the SCSI and IPI] protocols.”), 34-36, 82-100
`
`(providing detailed description of Tachyon SCSI hardware assists).
`
`Petitioners argue that the Smith article describes “a frame manager that
`
`‘implements portions of the FC-1 and FC-2 specifications’ and ‘is responsible for
`
`the FC-1 functions of transmitting and receiving Fibre Channel frames.’” Pet. at
`
`15
`
`
`
`32 (citing CQ-1006, pp. 102, 106, Fig. 5 on p. 104). As discussed above, the
`
`Tachyon User’s Manual describes the use of FCP. Ex. 2016 at 22, 27, 34-36.
`
`Moreover, the Tachyon User’s Manual describes the Frame Manager. E.g., id. at
`
`59, 71:
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners also rely on the HP Journal/Smith as showing “an ‘outbound
`
`frame FIFO,’ an ‘ACK FIFO,’ and an ‘inbound data FIFO’ that are coupled to the
`
`frame manager.” Pet. at 33 (citing CQ-1006, p. 106; Fig. 5 on p. 104). The
`
`Tachyon User’s Manual includes Figure 2.1, a portion of which is substantively
`
`identical to Figure 5 of Exhibit CQ-1006 and shows the same queues. Compare Ex.
`
`2016 at 31, Figure 2.2 (reproduced below) with Ex. CQ-1006, p. 104, Fig. 5:
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners reference “an ‘inbound block mover’ coupled to the FIFO queues
`
`that is ‘responsible for DMA transfers of inbound data into buffers’ and an
`
`‘outbound block mover’ that transfers ‘outbound data from host memory to the
`
`outbound sequence manager via DMA.’” Pet. at 33 (citing CQ-1006, p. 106; Fig. 6
`
`on p. 105). The Tachyon User’s Manual describes the Inbound and Outbound
`
`Block Movers. Ex. 2016 at 58 (“The Outbound Block Mover DMAs outbound
`
`data from host memory to the [Outbound Sequence Manager].”); id. at 72 (“The
`
`Inbound Block Mover is responsible for DMAing inbound data into buffers
`
`specified by the MFSBQ, SFSBQ or the SCSI Buffer manager.”). Figure 3.1 of the
`
`18
`
`
`
`Tachyon User’s Manual is substantively identical to Figure 6 on page 105 of the
`
`HP Journal/Smith. Compare Ex. 2016 at 37, Figure 3.1 (reproduced below) with
`
`Ex. CQ-1006, p. 105, Fig. 6 (showing identical Tachyon internal block diagrams).
`
`
`
`To the extent the Petitioners rely on the HP Journal, this information has already
`
`been disclosed by the Tachyon User’s Manual.
`
`In reexamination, the Patent Office “must cite the best references.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2) (emphasis added). The CRD-5500 Manual and arguments to
`
`combine the CRD-5500 with Fibre Channel were presented to the Office in the
`
`reexamination request. In addition, the relevant information of the HP Journal,
`
`including, for example, the Tachyon chip, were considered by the Office. The
`
`19
`
`
`
`CRD-5500 Manual, arguments to combine the CRD-5500 with Fibre Channel, and
`
`the information in the HP Journal/Smith thus have all been previously considered
`
`by the Office and rejected by the Office as a basis for challenging the claims of
`
`the ’972 Patent family. Accordingly, the Board should exercise its discretion and
`
`reject the Third Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), as all of Petitioners’
`
`references have been previously presented.
`
`C. The Patent Office confirmed the ’035, ’972, and ’753 Patents over
`the same arguments.
`
`In addition to reusing art that the Office previously considered, Second
`
`Petitioners are recycling the same arguments raised in the previous reexaminations.
`
`The reexamination requester presented the MaxStrat GEN 5 RAID controller
`
`that “could be configured to use combinations [of] SCSI, Fibre Channel and/or
`
`HIPPI transport media to connect to hosts.” Ex. 2021 at 318.9 According to the
`
`reexamination requester, the MaxStrat GEN 5 RAID controller included all of the
`
`structural elements of Claim 1 of the ’035 Patent: “See Figure 15 ‘GEN-5 XL
`
`Block Diagram’ depicting CPU 1 (supervisor unit) with Memory (buffer), IFP 1
`
`(Fibre Channel controller) coupled with High Speed Bus B (Fibre Channel
`
`Transport Unit), and DMC 1 (SCSI bus controller) coupled via an internal buffer
`
`
`9 Ex 2024 at 32.
`
`20
`
`
`
`with lines (SCSI Transport Unit) leading to disk drives.” Ex. 2013 at 1.10 Each of
`
`these structural elements was described in detail in the claim chart provided by the
`
`reexamination requester. See Ex. 2013.
`
`The MaxStrat Gen 5 created logical storage, called a “facility” from a set of
`
`disks. Id. at 5 (“For the Gen5, a facility is a partition on a disk or a set of disks[.]”).
`
`The reexamination requester also described that the MaxStrat Gen 5 could map
`
`LUNs on an interface port of the MaxStrat Gen 5 to a facility (“storage unit”) to
`
`enable access to the facility. Ex. 2021 at 316 (“[LUN bitmask enable] field is used
`
`to specify the enabling of LUNs on interface ports to provide access to ‘facilities’
`
`(storage units).”); Ex. 2013 at 5-611. Thus, according to the reexamination
`
`requester, the MaxStrat Gen 5 could make different facilities (logical storage)
`
`available as LUNs on different ports as illustrated below:
`
`
`10 See Ex. 2024 at 101.
`
`11 See Ex. 2024 at 30, 105-06.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Interface Ports
`
`Physical
`Storage
`
`Maxstrat Gen 5 Assigns
`LUN On Port
`To Logical Storage
`(Facility)
`
`
`
`Ex. 2021 at 317 (annotations added).
`
`The CRD-5500 is a RAID system that uses SCSI I/O modules. Petitioners
`
`argue that the SCSI I/O modules can be replaced with a Fibre Channel I/O module.
`
`Pet. at 18-19. The CRD-5500 creates logical storage, called redundancy groups,
`
`from physical disks. See, e.g., Ex. CQ-1004 at 10. The “Host LUN Mapping”
`
`feature of the CRD-5500 controller is used to “map LUNs [(Logical Unit
`
`Numbers)] on each host channel to a particular redundancy group.” E.g., id. at 44.
`
`A “host channel” refers to an onboard I/O module that is used to connect to a host.
`
`E.g., id. at 9 (“The controller has nine I/O module slots. One of these slots is
`
`reserved for use as a host channel, and five are reser
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
