Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 50
` Entered: January 29, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., QUANTUM CORPORATION,
`and ORACLE CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-015441
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, KRISTINA M. KALAN, J. JOHN LEE, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00852 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On September 25, 2014, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Quantum
`
`Corporation filed a Petition (Paper 3, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review
`
`of claims 1–39 of U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’147
`
`patent”). Crossroads Systems, Inc. timely filed a Preliminary Response
`
`(Paper 7). An inter partes review of all challenged claims was instituted on
`
`April 3, 2015. Paper 9 (“Inst. Dec.”). Crossroads then filed a Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper 20, “PO Resp.”), and Cisco and Quantum filed a Petitioner
`
`Reply (Paper 33, “Pet. Reply”).
`
`
`
`Oracle Corporation filed a separate petition challenging the same
`
`claims of the ’147 patent on March 6, 2015, in Oracle Corporation v.
`
`Crossroads Systems, Inc., Case IPR2015-00852 (“852 IPR”). 852 IPR,
`
`Paper 1. The 852 IPR petition asserted the identical ground of
`
`unpatentability, and relied on the same evidence and arguments, as presented
`
`in this proceeding. See id. Concurrently with that petition, Oracle filed a
`
`Motion for Joinder requesting that the 852 IPR be joined with this
`
`proceeding. 852 IPR, Paper 3. Crossroads timely filed a preliminary
`
`response to Oracle’s petition (852 IPR, Paper 12), but it did not oppose
`
`joinder. An inter partes review of all challenged claims was instituted on
`
`August 14, 2015, and Oracle’s Motion for Joinder was granted. Paper 34
`
`(“Joinder Inst. Dec.”). Because Oracle requested in its Motion for Joinder,
`
`the schedule in this proceeding was unchanged by the joinder of the 852
`
`IPR, and Oracle indicated it would not require briefing separate from that
`
`filed by Cisco and Quantum in this proceeding. Id. at 8–9.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`An oral hearing was held on October 30, 2015. Paper 49 (“Tr.”).2
`
`
`
`
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. As
`
`discussed below, Petitioners have shown by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that claims 1–39 of the ’147 patent are unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`
`
`The parties identify several of district court cases related to this
`
`proceeding, including the following in which Petitioners are named parties:
`
`(1) Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation, Case No. 1-13-cv-
`
`00895-SS (W.D. Tex.); (2) Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`
`Case No. 1-14-cv-00148-SS (W.D. Tex.); and (3) Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`
`v. Quantum Corporation, Case No. 1-14-cv-00150-SS (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 1;
`
`Paper 15, 3–4.
`
`
`
`In addition, the ’147 patent is the subject of two other pending inter
`
`partes reviews: (1) Oracle Corporation v. Crossroads Systems, Inc., Case
`
`IPR2014-01207 (PTAB); and (2) Oracle Corporation v. Crossroads
`
`Systems, Inc., Case IPR2014-01209 (PTAB). Pet. 1; Paper 15, 4.
`
`B.
`
`The ’147 Patent
`
`
`
`The ’147 patent relates to a storage router and network where devices
`
`(e.g., workstations) connected to a Fibre Channel (“FC”) transport medium
`
`are provided access to storage devices on a second FC transport medium.
`
`Ex. 1001, Abstract. The storage router interfaces with both FC media,
`
`mapping workstations on the first FC transport medium, for example, to the
`
`storage devices on the second FC transport medium. Id. The storage router
`
`
`2 A combined oral hearing was held for this case as well as related inter
`partes reviews IPR2014-01226 (to which IPR2015-00825 was joined) and
`IPR2014-01463 (to which IPR2015-00854 was joined).
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the ’147 patent allows access from the workstations to the storage devices
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`using “native low level, block protocol.” Id. One advantage of using such
`
`native low level block protocols is greater access speed when compared to
`
`network protocols that must first be translated to low level requests, and vice
`
`versa, which reduces access speed. Id. at 1:58–67.
`
`C.
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`
`
`Petitioners challenge the patentability of claims 1–39 of the ’147
`
`patent, of which claims 1, 6, 10, 14, 21, 28, and 34 are independent. Claim 1
`
`is illustrative of the challenged claims, and recites:
`
`A storage router for providing virtual local storage on
`1.
`remote storage devices to a device, comprising:
`
`a buffer providing memory work space for the storage router;
`
`a first Fibre Channel controller operable to connect to and
`interface with a first Fibre Channel transport medium;
`
`a second Fibre Channel controller operable to connect to and
`interface with a second Fibre Channel transport medium; and
`
`a supervisor unit coupled to the first and second Fibre Channel
`controllers and the buffer, the supervisor unit operable:
`
`to maintain a configuration for remote storage devices
`connected to the second Fibre Channel transport medium
`that maps between the device and the remote storage
`devices and that implements access controls for storage
`space on the remote storage devices; and
`
`to process data in the buffer to interface between the first
`Fibre Channel controller and the second Fibre Channel
`controller to allow access from Fibre Channel initiator
`devices to the remote storage devices using native low
`level, block protocol
`in
`accordance with
`the
`configuration.
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`Instituted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This inter partes review was instituted on the alleged ground of
`
`unpatentability of all challenged claims in view of the combination of the
`
`CRD Manual3 and the HP Journal4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Inst. Dec. 16;
`
`Joinder Inst. Dec. 9.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`construed according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`
`793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Only those terms in controversy
`
`need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`
`
`During trial, the parties disputed the claim construction of the term
`
`“maps between the device and the remote storage devices,” which we
`
`address below. No other claim terms require express construction to resolve
`
`the issues raised in this inter partes review.
`
`Claim 1 recites “a configuration for remote storage devices . . . that
`
`maps between the device and the remote storage devices” (emphasis added).
`
`Each independent claim recites a similar limitation. This term was not
`
`construed expressly in the Decision on Institution. Petitioners argue this
`
`
`3 CMD TECHNOLOGY, INC., CRD-5500 SCSI RAID CONTROLLER USER’S
`MANUAL (Rev. 1.3, 1996) (Ex. 1004, “CRD Manual”).
`4 HEWLETT-PACKARD JOURNAL, Oct. 1996 (Ex. 1006, “HP Journal”).
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`term should be construed as “allocate[s] storage on the storage devices to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`devices to facilitate routing and access controls.” Pet. 11.5
`
`Patent Owner argues that the term “requires that the map specifically
`
`identify the host and storage so that the storage router can allocate storage to
`
`particular hosts.” PO Resp. 10. Further, Patent Owner makes clear its
`
`position that the recited mapping requires the storage devices to be mapped
`
`directly to a particular device, such as a host computer. Id. at 6–10.
`
`According to Patent Owner, it is not enough to map between a storage
`
`device and an intermediate identifier associated with a particular device
`
`because the identifier is not directly and immutably associated with the
`
`device itself—in other words, mapping to an identifier is insufficient unless
`
`the identifier is associated with a particular device and cannot be associated
`
`with any other device. See id. at 19–22 (arguing that mapping to a channel
`
`identifier does not suffice, even if the channel is connected to only one host
`
`device, because the channel identifier could be associated with another
`
`device if another device were connected to that channel).
`
`We are not persuaded Petitioners’ proposed construction is the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the “maps between” term. Petitioners
`
`do not explain sufficiently what it means to “facilitate” routing and access
`
`controls. Moreover, other claim terms expressly address access controls and
`
`allocating storage. For example, dependent claim 7 recites “access controls”
`
`including “an allocation of subsets of storage space.” Petitioners do not
`
`provide a persuasive justification for including these concepts in the
`
`construction of the “maps between” term.
`
`
`5 The 852 IPR petition presented the same challenges “verbatim” as the
`Petition in this proceeding. 852 IPR, Paper 1, 1. Thus, in general, we cite
`only to the Petition filed in this proceeding for brevity.
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The construction proposed by Patent Owner, however, is overly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`narrow. Although Patent Owner emphasizes that the map must identify
`
`specific host devices, it does not explain persuasively why the claim
`
`language should be construed to exclude doing so via intermediate
`
`identifiers. See PO Resp. 5–10. Patent Owner does not identify any
`
`disclosure in the ’147 patent’s specification that clearly disavows mapping
`
`to a device indirectly, or mapping to a device via an intermediate identifier
`
`that could identify a different host if the system were configured differently.
`
`See Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (holding that “words of manifest exclusion or explicit disclaimers in
`
`the specification are necessary to disavow claim scope” (internal quotations
`
`omitted)). Patent Owner’s discussion of Figure 3, for example, is
`
`insufficient to compel a narrow construction of the term because it analyzes
`
`only a preferred embodiment of the invention. See PO Resp. 8–9; see also
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`(holding that limitations should not be imported from embodiments into the
`
`claims absent a clear disclaimer of claim scope in the specification).
`
`Moreover, the ’147 patent specifically discusses mapping with
`
`identifiers that are not immutable. For example, the specification discusses
`
`addressing devices on an FC loop using an AL_PA (arbitrated loop physical
`
`address) identifier, and the possibility of “FC devices changing their AL-PA
`
`due to device insertion or other loop initialization.” Ex. 1001, 8:40–46; see
`
`Tr. 54:5–55:15 (counsel for Patent Owner acknowledging an AL_PA is a
`
`“temporarily assigned ID” that can point to different devices); Pet. Reply 4–
`
`7 (discussing evidence supporting the use of intermediate identifiers,
`
`including testimony by Patent Owner’s proffered expert).
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Further, the claims of the ’147 patent indicate the mapping may use
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mere representations of a device rather than requiring direct mapping to the
`
`device itself. Claim 15, for example, recites mapping including “virtual
`
`LUNs that provide a representation of the storage device,” and claim 17
`
`recites “mapping from a host device ID to a virtual LUN representation of
`
`the remote storage device.” Although these claims refer to “virtual”
`
`representations of storage devices rather than host devices, the “maps
`
`between” term of the independent claims uses the same language when
`
`referring to both the devices and storage devices—for example, claim 14
`
`merely recites a “map between the device and the remote storage device.”
`
`The claim language does not indicate that the mapping may address storage
`
`devices one way, but that devices must be addressed in a different, more
`
`specific or direct way.
`
`For the reasons above, we are not persuaded that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of “maps between the device and the remote
`
`storage devices” mandates mapping directly or immutably to a host device
`
`itself, or excludes mapping to devices using intermediate identifiers.
`
`The parties note that a district court in a related case construed the
`
`term as follows:
`
`To create a path from a device on one side of the storage router
`to a device on the other side of the router. A “map” contains a
`representation of devices on each side of the storage router, so
`that when a device on one side of the storage router wants to
`communicate with a device on the other side of the storage
`router, the storage router can connect the devices.
`
`Ex. 1009, 12. Although we are not bound by the construction or reasoning
`
`of the district court, we do not disregard the analysis and conclusions of a
`
`court construing the same claim term in a concurrent proceeding concerning
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the same patent. See Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318, 1326–
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27 (Fed. Cir. 2015). After considering the construction of the district court,
`
`we determine this construction corresponds to the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation and adopt it for purposes of this Decision.
`
`B.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`Petitioners assert that claims 1–39 are unpatentable under § 103 in
`
`view of the combination of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal. Pet. 14–
`
`60. As discussed below, Petitioners have demonstrated by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence that all challenged claims are unpatentable on this ground.
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`CRD Manual
`
`The CRD Manual describes the CRD-5500 RAID controller, a device
`
`that enables access to an array of disk drives on SCSI buses. Ex. 1004, 9.6
`
`This controller has a modular design that permits customization of its I/O
`
`channels using different I/O hardware modules, which allow support of
`
`multiple hosts and multiple drives. Id. at 9–11.
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`HP Journal
`
`The HP Journal is a collection of articles dated October 1996.
`
`Ex. 1006, 1–3. For example, the HP Journal includes an article titled “An
`
`Introduction to Fibre Channel” by Meryem Primmer (“Primmer Article”).
`
`Id. at 94. The Primmer Article discusses FC technology, describing it as “a
`
`flexible, scalable, high-speed data transfer interface” where “[n]etworking
`
`and I/O protocols, such as SCSI commands, are mapped to [FC] constructs
`
`and encapsulated and transported within [FC] frames.” Id.
`
`
`
`Additionally, an article titled “Tachyon: A Gigabit Fibre Channel
`
`Protocol Chip,” by Judith A. Smith and Meryem Primmer (“Smith Article”),
`
`
`6 For clarity, we refer to the pagination of Exhibit 1004 provided by
`Petitioners and not its native pagination.
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is also included in the HP Journal. Id. at 99. The Smith article discusses the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tachyon chip, an FC interface controller (id. at 111) that “enables a
`
`seamless interface to the physical FC-0 layer and low-cost [FC] attachments
`
`for hosts, systems, and peripherals on both industry-standard and proprietary
`
`buses.” Id. at 99.
`
`
`
`These portions of the HP Journal relied on by Petitioners share a
`
`common author (Meryem Primmer), and similar subject matter (FC
`
`technology and its implementation), as well as the same apparent publication
`
`date in the same issue of the journal. Patent Owner did not dispute that one
`
`of ordinary skill7 would have combined the teachings of the different articles
`
`in the HP Journal. Based on the full record after trial, we agree and consider
`
`them collectively, as the parties have done throughout the proceeding, for
`
`simplicity and to avoid confusion.
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Reason to Combine the CRD Manual and the HP Journal
`
`Applicable to all of the challenged claims, the Petition provides a
`
`detailed analysis of why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to combine the CRD Manual and the HP Journal in the manner
`
`asserted by Petitioners. Pet. 18–22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–62). Specifically,
`
`Petitioners contend: (1) the CRD Manual explains that the disclosed CRD-
`
`5500 controller has a modular design capable of accepting various I/O
`
`modules; (2) the HP Journal describes the benefits of FC technology over
`
`SCSI technology; (3) the HP Journal discloses the replacement of SCSI with
`
`FC, including the use of SCSI commands with FC frames. Id. For example,
`
`the HP Journal discusses various advantages of FC over SCSI as a transport
`
`medium technology, including advantages in bandwidth and addressability,
`
`
`7 The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record.
`See Okajima v. Boudreau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and explains how some FC controllers are compatible with SCSI devices.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id.; see, e.g., Ex. 1006, 94–95, 99–101. Patent Owner does not dispute in its
`
`Patent Owner Response8 that a person of ordinary skill would have had
`
`reason to combine the teachings of these references. Based on the full
`
`record after trial, Petitioners have articulated a sufficient reason to combine
`
`the CRD Manual and the HP Journal with rational underpinnings supported
`
`by the evidence. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
`
`(2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1
`
`Petitioners contend the CRD Manual teaches a storage router, the
`
`CRD-5500 controller, which routes data between host computers (“a
`
`device”) and SCSI disk drives (“remote storage devices”). Pet. 23;
`
`Ex. 1004, 9–11. According to Petitioners, the CRD Manual teaches the
`
`buffer limitation of claim 1 through its disclosure of an “onboard cache” that
`
`temporarily stores data from the hosts before eventually writing that data to
`
`the storage devices. Pet. 24; Ex. 1004, 12.
`
`
`
`With respect to the first and second FC controllers, Petitioners rely on
`
`teachings from the combination of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal, as
`
`follows. Pet. 24–26. First, the CRD Manual discloses multiple “I/O
`
`modules,” which interface with SCSI buses that connect to the hosts and the
`
`disk drives. Ex. 1004, 9, 21, 24, 32. Second, the HP Journal discusses the
`
`Tachyon FC controller chip, which enables interfacing with a high-speed FC
`
`connection. Ex. 1006, 101, 111. The HP Journal further discloses that the
`
`Tachyon controller is designed to be compatible with SCSI commands as
`
`
`8 Although Crossroads disputed whether Petitioners articulated a sufficient
`reason to combine the references in its Preliminary Response, it waived this
`argument by not including it in its Patent Owner Response.
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`well. Id. at 101. Based on these disclosures and the testimony of their
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proffered expert, Dr. Andrew Hospodor (Ex. 1003), Petitioners argue a
`
`person of ordinary skill would have been taught to replace the SCSI
`
`technology of the CRD Manual I/O modules with the FC controller chip and
`
`FC interconnects of the HP Journal to arrive at the recited FC controllers and
`
`FC transport media of claim 1. Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–62).9
`
`
`
`Next, the Petition identifies the central processor, system circuitry,
`
`and firmware disclosed in the CRD Manual as teaching the recited
`
`“supervisor unit.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1004, 9, 11, 40, 53, Fig. 2-1). Further,
`
`according to Petitioners, the combination of the CRD Manual and the HP
`
`Journal teaches “process[ing] data in the buffer to interface between the first
`
`Fibre Channel controller and the second Fibre Channel controller to allow
`
`access from Fibre Channel initiator devices to the remote storage devices
`
`using native low level, block protocol in accordance with the configuration,”
`
`as recited in claim 1. Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1003, 56–59). Specifically,
`
`Petitioners note that the CRD Manual discloses host computers (initiator
`
`devices) writing data to disk drives (remote storage devices) via an onboard
`
`cache (buffer) using a SCSI interface. Id.; Ex. 1004, 9, 12, 24–25. As the
`
`’147 patent discloses, SCSI is an example of a “native low level, block
`
`protocol” within the meaning of the claims. See Ex. 1001, 5:13–17, 5:46–
`
`50. In addition, Petitioners rely on the HP Journal’s discussion of using
`
`
`9 Crossroads argues that Dr. Hospodor’s testimony should be accorded
`“diminished” weight due to his alleged bias and certain deposition testimony
`that Crossroads believes undermines his credibility. PO Resp. 55–58. All of
`these considerations were taken into account, and Dr. Hospodor’s testimony
`was accorded the weight appropriate in light of the full record. Further, we
`determine that Dr. Hospodor was a credible witness overall, despite the
`issues identified by Crossroads, because his testimony generally was
`supported by the record as explained in this Decision.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`encapsulated SCSI commands over an FC link through the Tachyon FC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`controller (Ex. 1006, 101), arguing these disclosures would have taught a
`
`person of ordinary skill to process data from host computers via an onboard
`
`cache to access (e.g., write data to) storage drives using encapsulated SCSI
`
`commands over an FC network. Pet. 28–29.
`
`
`
`As to the requirement that the supervisor unit be operable to “maintain
`
`a configuration . . . that maps between the device and the remote storage
`
`devices,” Petitioners rely on the CRD Manual’s discussion of a host LUN
`
`(Logical Unit Number) mapping feature. Id. at 26–27. Specifically, the
`
`CRD Manual describes a feature of its Monitor Utility used to “map LUNs
`
`on each host channel to a particular redundancy group.” Ex. 1004, 44. A
`
`host channel corresponds to an I/O module, which is assigned to a host. Id.
`
`Each host channel has multiple LUNs, each of which can be mapped to a
`
`specific redundancy group. Id. Redundancy groups may be one or more
`
`disk drives, or partitions thereof. Id. at 19. Thus, Petitioners assert the CRD
`
`Manual teaches that the Monitor Utility maintains host LUN mapping
`
`settings that map a host on a host channel (the recited “device”) and
`
`redundancy groups (the recited “remote storage devices”). Pet. 26–27
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–55).
`
`
`
`Finally, Petitioners contend the CRD Manual teaches the “access
`
`controls” limitation as well. Id. at 27–28. Specifically, Petitioners identify
`
`the CRD Manual’s discussion of using host LUN mapping settings to make
`
`certain redundancy groups available to certain host channels while blocking
`
`access to other host channels. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 44).
`
`
`
`Based on the full record after trial, we find that the record supports the
`
`conclusion that the combination of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal
`
`teaches or suggests each limitation of claim 1 of the ’147 patent, as set forth
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in Petitioners’ analysis explained above. Patent Owner’s counterarguments
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`are unpersuasive.
`
`
`
`First, Patent Owner argues the asserted combination does not teach
`
`the “maps between” limitation of claim 1. PO Resp. 24–33; see also id. at
`
`14–23 (arguing the CRD Manual fails to teach mapping). According to
`
`Patent Owner, the CRD Manual fails to teach the recited mapping because
`
`the host LUN mapping feature only maps storage devices to host channels,
`
`not the specific hosts themselves. Id. at 14–16, 25–28 (citing Ex. 2027
`
`¶¶ 51–54, 61– 66, 73, 81, 82). This argument, however, relies on the overly
`
`narrow claim construction rejected above, and is unpersuasive as a result.
`
`For example, Patent Owner addresses Figure 1-2 of the CRD Manual, which
`
`is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 1-2 of the CRD Manual depicts a configuration of the CRD-5500
`
`controller where each of four different hosts is assigned to a different
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`channel, i.e., channel 0 through channel 3. Ex. 1004, 10. These hosts may
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`then access redundancy groups via the CRD-5500 controller. Id.
`
`
`
`Although the host LUN mapping feature disclosed in the CRD
`
`Manual maps redundancy groups to host channels, the specific configuration
`
`depicted in Figure 1-2 meets the mapping limitation because each host
`
`channel is dedicated to a single host—thus, in effect, mapping to a host
`
`channel is tantamount to mapping to a particular host. See Pet. Reply 12–13.
`
`In recognition of this fact, the CRD Manual explicitly refers to mapping to
`
`hosts and host channels interchangeably, which Patent Owner acknowledges
`
`at least with respect to Figure 1-2. See Ex. 1004, 9; PO Resp. 30–31; Pet.
`
`Reply 11. The analysis presented by Patent Owner regarding other
`
`configurations different from that in Figure 1-2—i.e., configurations where
`
`two hosts are connected to the same host channel (PO Resp. 21–22, 31)—
`
`does not cancel or negate the configuration disclosed by Figure 1-2.
`
`Similarly, whether the Figure 1-2 configuration would teach the mapping
`
`limitation if it were hypothetically altered is irrelevant. See PO Resp. 20–21.
`
`As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the mapping
`
`limitation is not limited only to mapping directly and immutably to a
`
`specific host device, and does not exclude categorically the use of
`
`intermediate identifiers. Consequently, Patent Owner has not shown
`
`persuasively why the configuration disclosed in the CRD Manual falls
`
`outside the scope of the claim language.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner additionally contends that the CRD Manual fails to
`
`teach the access controls limitation of claim 1. Id. at 33–38. Similar to its
`
`arguments relating to the mapping limitation, Patent Owner purports to show
`
`how the redundancy group access controls of the CRD Manual can be
`
`defeated by changing the disclosed configuration in Figure 1-2, i.e., by
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rewiring the hosts such that multiple hosts are connected to the same host
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`channel. Id. at 36–38. Patent Owner has not persuasively demonstrated,
`
`however, that the purported inadequacy of the access control method
`
`disclosed for the Figure 1-2 configuration, when directly applied to a
`
`different configuration, shows that the CRD Manual fails to teach
`
`implementing access controls at least for the configuration of Figure 1-2.
`
`
`
`Although Patent Owner argues that Petitioners rely on such a
`
`configuration because they propose combining the CRD Manual with the HP
`
`Journal, Patent Owner inaccurately characterizes Petitioners’ contentions as
`
`bodily incorporating only one aspect of the HP Journal’s teachings—placing
`
`all hosts on a single FC arbitrated loop—while ignoring the HP Journal’s
`
`other teachings regarding implementing such FC loops. See PO Resp. 34–
`
`36; see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for
`
`obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
`
`bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that
`
`the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
`
`references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
`
`would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). As noted in the
`
`Petition (Pet. 20), the HP Journal provides detailed disclosures on the
`
`implementation of FC arbitrated loops, including configurations with
`
`multiple host devices. See Ex. 1006, 100–111. The record as a whole
`
`supports Petitioners’ contention that a person of ordinary skill would have
`
`been able to combine the teachings of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal
`
`to arrive at a system utilizing FC loops, which maps redundancy groups to
`
`particular hosts and implements access controls as taught by the CRD
`
`Manual, but applying FC addressing capabilities taught by the HP Journal in
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lieu of the host channel-based implementation of the CRD Manual. See
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 55–61.
`
`
`
`Lastly, Patent Owner argues the asserted prior art fails to teach that
`
`the data in the CRD Manual’s onboard cache is processed “to allow access
`
`from Fibre Channel initiator devices to the remote storage devices,” as
`
`recited in claim 1, because the host already has access when that data is
`
`processed. PO Resp. 39. Thus, Patent Owner appears to argue that the data
`
`in the cache must be processed as part of determining whether access can be
`
`granted in the first place. Patent Owner does not, however, explain why the
`
`claim should be construed in that manner. The data in the CRD Manual’s
`
`onboard cache is written to the target storage device once it is processed,
`
`which Patent Owner does not dispute. See Ex. 1004, 12. As discussed
`
`above, Petitioners’ contention that writing to a storage device teaches
`
`allowing access to those devices is persuasive based on the record, and we
`
`are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s position is commensurate with the full
`
`scope of the claim language.
`
`
`
`In sum, based on the full record after trial, we find that a
`
`preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioners’ contention that the
`
`combination of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal teaches or suggests
`
`each limitation of claim 1 of the ’147 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Claims 2–5
`
`Claims 2–5 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Petitioners
`
`presented evidence and argument to support their contention that the
`
`combination of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal teaches each limitation
`
`of these dependent claims. Pet. 30–34. We agree that the cited evidence
`
`teaches or suggests the limitations of these claims. For example, Petitioners
`
`rely on the redundancy groups of the CRD Manual as teaching the “subsets
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of storage space” recited in claim 2, and identify the host LUN mapping and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`access control features in the CRD Manual as teaching allocating those
`
`subsets to associated devices such that each subset is only accessible by the
`
`associated device. Id. at 30–31. The Petition identifies portions of both the
`
`CRD Manual and the HP Journal that describe workstations, including
`
`workstations in an FC loop, as teaching FC devices comprising
`
`workstations, as recited in claim 3. Id. at 31. With respect to claim 4,
`
`Petitioners rely on the CRD Manual as disclosing disk drives as storage
`
`devices. Id. at 32. Further, Petitioners rely on the HP Journal’s discussion
`
`of an FC frame manager, FIFO queues, and inbound/outbound block
`
`movers, as teaching the FC protocol unit, first-in-first-out queue, and DMA
`
`interface limitations of claim 5. Id. at 32–34. We find Petitioners’
`
`contentions persuasive and supported by the record.
`
`
`
`In response, Patent Owner argues that the asserted prior art does not
`
`teach the limitations of claim 2 because it contends, as it did for claim 1, that
`
`