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 7,051,147
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PETITION
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 1 
`OVERVIEW OF CROSSROADS AND THE ’147 PATENT ....................... 3 
`A. 
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION ......................................................... 3 
`B. 
`THE “MAP” AND “ACCESS CONTROL” LIMITATIONS ............................. 5 
`1. 
`“Map” .......................................................................................... 5 
`2. 
`The “Access Controls”/“Controlling Access” Limitations ...... 10 
`PETITIONERS MISCHARACTERIZE THE CRD-5500 MANUAL ......... 14 
`III. 
`IV.  THE PETITION DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE
`UNPATENTABILITY OF THE CLAIMS ................................................... 23 
`A. 
`CLAIM 1 OF THE ’147 PATENT ............................................................. 24 
`1. 
`The CRD-5500 Manual And HP Journal Do Not Show
`“Maintain[ing] A Configuration That Maps Between The
`Device And The Remote Storage Devices” .............................. 24 
`The Petition Does Not Show A Supervisor Unit Operable
`To Implement Access Controls As Claimed ............................ 33 
`The Petition Does Not Show A Supervisor Unit Operable
`To Process Data In A Buffer To Allow Access ........................ 39 
`CLAIM 2 OF THE ’147 PATENT ............................................................. 39 
`CLAIMS 3-5 OF THE ’147 PATENT ........................................................ 40 
`CLAIM 6 OF THE ’147 PATENT ............................................................. 40 
`1. 
`The CRD-5500 Manual Does Not Teach “To Map
`Between The Workstations And The Storage Devices” ........... 41 
`The CRD-5500 Manual Does Not Teach “To Implement
`Access Controls.” ...................................................................... 41 
`CLAIM 7 OF THE ’147 PATENT ............................................................. 43 
`CLAIMS 8 AND 9 OF THE ’147 PATENT ................................................ 44 
`CLAIM 10 OF THE ’147 PATENT ........................................................... 44 
`CLAIMS 11-13 OF THE ’147 PATENT .................................................... 45 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`2. 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`
`E. 
`F. 
`G. 
`H. 
`
`i
`
`
`

`
`CLAIMS 14 AND 21 OF THE ’147 PATENT ............................................ 45 
`I. 
`CLAIMS 15, 22, 29 AND 35 OF THE ’147 PATENT ................................. 47 
`J. 
`CLAIMS 15, 22, 29 AND 35 OF THE ’ 147 PATENT ............................... ..47
`CLAIMS 16, 23 AND 30 OF THE ’147 PATENT ...................................... 47 
`K. 
`CLAIMS 16, 23 AND 30 OF THE ’147 PATENT .................................... ..47
`CLAIMS 17, 24 AND 36 OF THE ’147 PATENT ...................................... 47 
`L. 
`CLAIMS 17, 24 AND 36 OF THE ’147 PATENT .................................... ..47
`M.  CLAIMS 18, 19, 25 AND 26 OF THE ’147 PATENT ................................. 49 
`CLAIMS 18, 19, 25 AND 26 OF THE ’ 147 PATENT ............................... ..49
`N. 
`CLAIMS 20 AND 27 OF THE ’147 PATENT ............................................ 49 
`O. 
`CLAIM 28 OF THE ’147 PATENT ........................................................... 49 
`P. 
`CLAIMS 29-33 OF THE ’147 PATENT. ................................................... 49 
`Q. 
`CLAIMS 34 AND 35 OF THE ’147 PATENT. ........................................... 50 
`R. 
`CLAIMS 37-39 OF THE ’147 PATENT .................................................... 50
`CLAIMS 5 AND 8 OF THE '147 PATENT ……………………………….50
`S.
`
`CLAIMS 14 AND 21 OF THE ’147 PATENT .......................................... ..45
`
`CLAIMS 20 AND 27 OF THE ’147 PATENT .......................................... ..49
`
`CLAIM 28 OF THE ’ 147 PATENT ......................................................... ..49
`
`CLAIMS 29-33 OF THE ’147 PATENT. ................................................. ..49
`
`CLAIMS 34 AND 35 OF THE ’147 PATENT. ......................................... ..50
`
`CLAIMS 37-39 OF THE ’147 PATENT .................................................. ..50
`
`CLAIMS 5 AND 8 OF THE ‘147 PATENT ................................... ..50
`
`."’?°.O7°.C>.ZZF?‘-“-H
`
`V.
`
`OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THE
`
`NONOBVIOUSNESS OF THE INVENTION ........................................... ..50
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`LONG FELT NEED ............................................................................... ..51
`
`COMMERCIAL SUCCESS AND LICENSING ............................................ ..52
`
`VI.
`
`THE TESTIMONY OF PETITIONERS’ EXPERT SHOULD BE
`
`GIVEN LITTLE OR NO WEIGHT ............................................................ ..55
`
`V.  OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THE
`NONOBVIOUSNESS OF THE INVENTION ............................................. 50 
`A. 
`LONG FELT NEED ................................................................................. 51 
`B. 
`COMMERCIAL SUCCESS AND LICENSING .............................................. 52 
`VI.  THE TESTIMONY OF PETITIONERS’ EXPERT SHOULD BE
`GIVEN LITTLE OR NO WEIGHT .............................................................. 55 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 58 
`
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ ..5 8
`
`ii
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`B&H Mfg. v. Foster-Forbes Glass Co.,
`Civil No. F91-262, 1993 WL 141120,
`26 U.S.P.Q.2D 1066 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 6, 1993) ..................................................... 55
`
`Crossroads Systems (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc.,
`56 Fed. Appx. 502 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................ 53,54
`
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing, Ltd.,
`851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 52
`
`Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..................................................................... 56
`
`
`
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 50
`
`Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc.,
`976 F.2d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 55
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 51
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea,
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 51
`
`RCA Corp. v. Data General Corp.,
`701 F. Supp. 456 (D. Del. 1988) .......................................................................... 54
`
`Sandisk Corp. v. Lexar Media,
`91 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (N.D. Cal. 2000) ................................................................. 54
`
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
`713 F.2d 1530, (Fed. Cir. 1983) ........................................................................... 51
`
`iii
`
`
`

`
`STATUTES
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 24
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... ..24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ........................................................................................................ 24
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ...................................................................................................... ..24
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ..................................................................................................... 60
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ................................................................................................... ..60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ..................................................................................................... 60
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ................................................................................................... ..60
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................. 25, 30
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................................................................................... ..25, 30
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ................................................................................................... 60
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ................................................................................................. ..60
`
`MPEP § 2143 ........................................................................................................... 24
`MPEP § 2143 ......................................................................................................... ..24
`
`iv
`
`iv
`
`
`

`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`IPR2014-01544
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 5,941,972 (the “’972 patent”)
`
`District Court Order (denying motion for summary judgment of
`invalidity based on Kikuchi), Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc.
`v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc.,C.A. No. 00-cv-00217-SS
`(W.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2001)
`
`Final Judgment, Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v.
`Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., C.A. No. 00-cv-00217-SS
`(W.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2001)
`
`Markman Order, Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v.
`Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., C.A. No. 00-cv-00217-SS
`(W.D. Tex. Jul. 27, 2000) & Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc.
`v. Pathlight Technology, Inc., C.A. No. 00-cv-00248-SS (W.D.
`Tex. Jul. 27, 2000)
`
`Markman Order, Crossroads Systems (Texas), Inc. v. Dot Hill
`Systems Corp., C.A. No. 03-cv-00754-SS (W.D. Tex. Nov. 4,
`2005)
`
`Report and Recommendation of Special Master re: Claim
`Construction, Crossroads Systems (Texas), Inc. v. Dot Hill
`Systems Corp., C.A. No. 03-cv-00754-SS (W.D. Tex. Jan. 21,
`2005)
`
`Markman Order, Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3Par, Inc., C.A.
`No. 10-cv-00652-SS (W.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2011)
`
`Report and Recommendation of Special Master re: Claim
`Construction, Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3Par, Inc., C.A. No.
`10-cv-00652-SS (W.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2011)
`
`
`v
`
`
`

`
`Exhibit No.
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021-26
`
`Description
`Joint Claim Construction Chart submitted in Pending Litigation
`in Western District of Texas by Crossroads and Petitioners
`
`Declaration of Janice Pampell
`
`CRD-5500, RAID DISK ARRAY CONTROLLER Product
`Insert, pp. 1-5
`
`[Reserved]
`
`Claim Chart Comparing MaxStrat Gen5 S-Series XL to ’035
`Patent Claims, Exhibit 10 to July 19, 2004 Ex Parte
`Reexamination Request in Reexamination Control No.
`90/001,125
`
`[Reserved]
`
`[Reserved]
`
`Hewlett Packard, TACHYON HPFC-5000 User’s Manual, May
`1996
`
`CMD Technology, CRD-5500 RAID Controller Brochure, May
`1999
`
`Exhibit 1005 to Oracle Corp. v. Crossroads Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01196, Paper 1 (PTAB July 23, 2014)
`
`Exhibit 1004 to Oracle Corp. v. Crossroads Systems, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01196, Paper 1 (PTAB July 23, 2014)
`
`Order Granting Joint Motion to Coordinate Cases for Discovery
`
`[Reserved]
`
`2027
`
`Declaration of Dr. John Levy, Ph.D. (“Levy”)
`
`vi
`
`
`

`
`Exhibit No.
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`
`2038
`
`2039
`
`Description
`Deposition of Andrew Hospodor, Ph.D., Cisco Sys., Inc. v.
`Crossroads Sys., Inc., IPR2014-01226 (PTAB March 26, 2015)
`
`October 6, 2014 Markman Hearing Transcript
`Crossroads Sys., Inc. v. Multiple Defendants
`(co-pending litigation in W.D. Tex.)
`
`Storage Systems Research Center Profile for Andy Hospodor
`(unfiled, referenced in March 26, 2015 Hospodor Deposition)
`
`Annotated Figures from CRD-5500 User Manual (Ex. 1004)
`(unfiled, referenced in March 26, 2015 Hospodor Deposition)
`
`Defendants’ Joint Claim Construction Brief
`(co-pending litigation, W. D. Tex.)
`
`July 31, 2014 Declaration of Randy Katz regarding Claim
`Construction (including exhibits)
`(co-pending litigation, W.D. Tex.).
`
`Special Master’s Recommended Constructions
`(co-pending litigation, W.D. Tex.)
`
`Crossroads Industry Awards
`
`Sept. 7, 2012 Strongbox Engineering Excellence Award
`Announcement
`
`Small Computer System Interface-2, ANSI X3.131-1994
`
`Randy H. Katz, High Performance Network and Channel-
`Based Storage, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 80, No. 8,
`August 1992
`
`Declaration of Jennifer Ray Crane (April 16, 2015)
`
`vii
`
`
`

`
`Exhibit No.
`2040
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`2046
`
`2047
`
`2048
`
`
`
`Description
`Exhibit A to Declaration of Jennifer Ray Crane
`Confidential Protective Order Material
`
`Appendix B to Declaration of Jennifer Ray Crane
`
`Appendix C to Declaration of Jennifer Ray Crane
`Confidential Protective Order Material
`
`Declaration of Brian Bianchi (April 20, 2015)
`
`Exhibit A to Declaration of Brian Bianchi
`Confidential Protective Order Material
`
`Exhibit B to Declaration of Brian Bianchi
`Confidential Protective Order Material
`
`Exhibit C to Declaration of Brian Bianchi
`
`SCSI 3 Architecture Model, ANSI X3.270-1996
`
`NFS: Network File System Version 3 Protocol Specification,
`Sun Microsystems, February 16, 1994
`
`
`viii
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The proposed combinations of the CRD-5500 Manual and HP Journal fail to
`
`teach multiple limitations of Claims 1-39 of United States Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`(the “’147 Patent”). These references do not teach “mapping” or “access controls”
`
`which require that the storage be mapped to a “particular” host in order to control
`
`each “particular” host’s access to storage. Petitioners create the false impression
`
`that the “Host LUN Mapping” feature of the CRD-5500 teaches mapping and
`
`controlling access between specific hosts and subsets of storage. See, e.g., Paper 1,
`
`Petition (“Pet.”) at 15 (“The Monitor Utility includes a ‘Host LUN Mapping’
`
`feature that allows a user to map subsets of storage space on the storage
`
`devices . . . to specific hosts.”) (emphasis added); id. at 37 (“Host LUN Mapping
`
`feature [] maps between hosts and storage devices by assigning redundancy groups
`
`to particular hosts . . . .”) (emphasis added); Ex. 1003 at 27 (“The Monitor Utility
`
`includes a ‘Host LUN Mapping’ feature that allows a user to map subsets of
`
`storage space on the storage devices . . . to specific hosts.”) (emphasis added); id.
`
`at 55 (explaining that “the map maintained by the CRD-5500 RAID controller
`
`includes representations of both hosts and storage devices”). However, the CRD-
`
`5500 Manual does not show how to map storage to particular hosts or prevent
`
`particular hosts from accessing certain subsets of storage, because the Host LUN
`
`Mapping feature does not in any way involve the particular hosts. In other words,
`
`1
`
`
`

`
`
`
`the Host LUN Mapping feature has no concept of individual host identity, a fact
`
`that Petitioners’ expert has admitted. See Ex. 2028, 192:14-19, 195:5-9.
`
`The Board instituted this inter partes review in reliance on Petitioners’
`
`inaccurate argument that the CRD-5500 Manual showed mapping and controlling
`
`access between particular hosts to storage using the Host LUN Mapping feature.
`
`See e.g., Institution Decision (Paper 9, “Decision”) at 8 (“In addition, this mapping
`
`of LUN identifiers of a host device to specific groups of disk drives allows certain
`
`drives to be made available to one host channel while blocking access from another
`
`host, which teaches implementing access controls as recited in claim 1 . . . .”)
`
`(emphasis added); id. at 11 (“Petitioners identify the CRD Manual’s disclosures
`
`regarding . . . the assignment of each partition (i.e., ‘redundancy group’) to specific
`
`hosts . . . .”) (emphasis added). These statements badly mischaracterize the CRD-
`
`5500 Manual and Patent Owner respectfully submits that trial would not have been
`
`instituted absent Petitioners’ mischaracterization. The CRD-5500 Manual fails to
`
`teach both the “mapping” and “access controls” limitations because the Host LUN
`
`Mapping feature does not include the ability to assign storage to particular hosts.
`
`This dooms Petitioners’ asserted combinations for all of the subject claims. None
`
`of Petitioners’ cited references overcome the deficiencies in the asserted grounds.
`
`Moreover, secondary considerations of non-obviousness also establish the
`
`patentability of the claims. Thus, the subject claims cannot be obvious in view of
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`
`
`the cited art combinations and in light of the objective evidence.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF CROSSROADS AND THE ’147 PATENT
`
`Crossroads, founded in 1996, is a global provider of data storage solutions.
`
`Crossroads has received numerous industry awards for its data archiving, storage
`
`and protection products, including an engineering excellence award for its current
`
`“StrongBox” product. Ex. 2035; Ex. 2036. As a technology leader, Crossroads has
`
`been awarded over 100 patents, including the subject ’147 Patent covering an
`
`inventive storage router. Crossroads created and developed the “storage router”
`
`market. In fact, the term “storage router” did not exist in the industry until the
`
`Crossroads invention. See, e.g., Ex. 2027 (“Levy”) ¶ 31; Ex. 2029, 101:23-25,
`
`104:24-105:1, 136:9-13.
`
`A. Background Of The Invention
`
`As described in the Background of the ’147 Patent, computers access storage
`
`either “locally or through network interconnects.” Ex. 1001, 1:44-46. To access
`
`local storage, a computer uses a native low level block protocol (“NLLBP”).
`
`NLLBPs allow for simple and direct access to local storage in a fast and efficient
`
`manner. Levy ¶ 21; Ex. 1001, 1:51-54 (“These protocols map directly to the
`
`mechanisms used by the storage device and consist of data requests without
`
`security controls.”). In the prior art, NLLBPs were typically sent to local storage
`
`over a parallel bus transport medium, such as a Small Computer System Interface
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`
`
`(SCSI) bus. Levy ¶ 22. However, a SCSI bus cannot carry information very far.
`
`Id. As described in the ’147 Patent, “[t]ypical storage transport mediums provide
`
`for a relatively small number of devices to be attached over relatively short
`
`distances.” Ex. 1001, 1:30-32.
`
`Modern computer systems need networks that connect multiple computers to
`
`multiple remote storage devices over distances that parallel buses cannot support,
`
`while controlling what storage each computer can access. At the time of
`
`Crossroads’ invention, network servers (also referred to as network file servers)
`
`could connect to multiple computers using a serial network transport medium and
`
`then to storage devices using a storage transport medium, such as a SCSI bus. Ex.
`
`1001, 1:54-56, 3:12-26; Levy ¶ 23-24. However, these network servers used a file
`
`system structure which required the computers (e.g., workstations) to send high
`
`level requests to the network server that the server had to translate into low level
`
`requests in order to actually access the storage. Ex. 1001, 1:58-61, 3:30-34; see
`
`also Levy ¶¶ 25-26. Because it takes the computer time to create a high level
`
`network protocol containing a file system request, and it takes the network server
`
`time to construct an NLLBP from that network protocol (which the server needs to
`
`do in order to communicate with the storage device), the network server created a
`
`bottleneck, slowing down access to remote storage devices. Id. at 1:61-67, 3:29-38;
`
`see also Levy ¶ 30. Crossroads’ inventions provided a solution to these obstacles.
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`
`
`B.
`
`The “Map” And “Access Control” Limitations
`
`The claimed inventions solved these problems by providing centralized
`
`access controls by mapping between specifically identified hosts and remote
`
`storage allocated to those identified hosts. That solution overcame one of the
`
`limitations of the prior art by allowing the host to access the allocated storage
`
`using native low level block protocols (instead of high level protocols).
`
`1.
`
`“Map”
`
`Each of the independent claims includes a map limitation: “[a] supervisor
`
`unit operable to maintain a configuration . . . that maps between the device and the
`
`remote storage devices” (Claim 1); “a storage router . . . operable to map between
`
`the workstations and the storage devices” (Claim 6); “maintaining a configuration
`
`for remote storage devices that maps between Fibre Channel devices and the
`
`remote storage devices” (Claim 10); “according to a map between the device and
`
`the remote storage device” (Claim 14); “[an] access control device operable to map
`
`between the at least one device and a storage space on the at least one storage
`
`device” (Claim 21); “mapping between a device connected to a first transport
`
`medium and a storage device connected to a second transport medium” (Claim 28);
`
`“[a] supervisor unit operable to maintain a configuration that maps between the
`
`host device and at least a portion of the storage space on the storage device”
`
`(Claim 34).
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petitioners agree that “mapping” requires identification of particular hosts
`
`within the map. See Pet. at 26 (asserting that the mapping limitation is met by the
`
`“‘Host LUN Mapping feature’ that ‘assign[s] redundancy groups to a particular
`
`host’ in mapping tables”) (emphasis added). Petitioners’ expert further confirmed
`
`that the construction proposed by Petitioners--“to allocate storage on the storage
`
`devices to devices to facilitate routing and access controls”--includes the
`
`requirement that the particular hosts to which storage is allocated be specifically
`
`represented in the map. Pet. at 11; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25-26 (stating that “[i]n any case, I
`
`believe the following constructions are consistent with the [3Par] District Court’s
`
`constructions.”) 1. In fact, Petitioners’ expert testified that the “mapping”
`
`
`1 In Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3Par Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-652-SS
`
`(the “3Par Litigation”), the District Court construed “map/mapping” of the ’147
`
`Patent to mean “[t]o 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 at 12. Because the
`
`mapping creates associations between the particular hosts and storage, the map
`
`must include representations of both the hosts and storage.
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`
`
`limitation requires an association of a particular workstation with storage:
`
`[Dr. Hospodor]: “A. [S]o the subsets 66, 68, 70, and 72 here can only
`be accessed by associated workstation 58, meaning that they can
`only be accessed by the workstation 58 that’s associated with that
`subset.
`Q.: Okay . . . . So [workstation] A gets storage A?
`A.: Yes. That’s what we’re talking about here.
`Q.: Okay. And that association is done through the mapping,
`correct?
`A.: Yes.
`
`Ex. 2028, 121:12-22 (Dr. Hospodor testifying on the identical specification of
`
`United States Patent No. 6,425,035) (emphasis added).
`
`The specification of the ’147 Patent leaves no doubt as to the meaning of the
`
`mapping limitation because it describes the map in the same way. Ex. 1001, 9:11-
`
`17. In order to provide access controls, the storage router of the ’147 Patent uses a
`
`map that associates representations of hosts on one side of the storage router with
`
`representations of storage on the other side of the storage router, to define what
`
`storage is available to each particular host. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:26-29, 4:35-39
`
`(describing “storage allocated to each attached workstation” through “mapping
`
`tables or other mapping techniques” so that allocated storage “can only be accessed
`
`by the associated workstation”) (emphasis added); see also id. at 9:11-17 (“The
`
`storage router can use tables to map, for each initiator, what storage access is
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`
`
`available” so that “[i]n this manner, the storage space . . . can be allocated to [each
`
`initiator]”) (emphasis added). Thus, to allocate storage on storage devices to
`
`devices on the first transport medium to facilitate routing and access controls
`
`means the “map” must identify within the map the precise host to which storage
`
`has been allocated within the map. See Levy ¶¶ 36-37.
`
`Figure 3 (reproduced below) shows an example of mapping in which a
`
`storage router 56 maps workstations 58 to storage. Importantly, in Figure 3,
`
`workstations 58 are interconnected with storage router 56 by the same
`
`interconnect, i.e., “a common – [Fibre Channel high speed serial] transport.” Ex.
`
`1001, 4:10-17. In other words, all five workstations are on the same transport
`
`medium. Storage router 56 uses “mapping tables or other mapping techniques”
`
`(i.e., a map) to associate each of Workstations A-D with a subset of storage 66, 68,
`
`70 and 72, so that each subset “is allocated to one of the workstations 58” and “can
`
`only be accessed by the associated workstation 58.” Ex. 1001, 4:26-38 (emphasis
`
`added). Similarly, workstation E can be associated with whole storage device 64.
`
`Id. at 4:39-40.
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe storagge router
`
`
`
`
`
`associatess each paarticular wworkstationn on the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`first
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`transporrt mediumm (commonn Fibre Chhannel trannsport 52)
`
`
`
`
`
`allocatee such storrage to thee particularr workstattions. Id. aat 9:11-17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with storaage in ordeer to
`
`
`
`
`
`(“The stoorage
`
`
`
`router ccan use tables to mapp, for eachh initiator, what storrage accesss is availaable”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`so that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“[i]n thiss manner, the storaage space
`
`
`
`. . . cann be alloccated to [
`
`
`
`each
`
`
`
`initiatorr].”) (emphasis addeed). In othher wordss, the mapp allocate((s) storagee on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`devices tto devicess on the ffirst transpport mediuum by iddentifying
`
`with
`
`storage
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`specificcity the parrticular hosst that has aaccess to sstorage reppresented inn the map.
`
`
`
`
`
` See
`
`
`
`Levy ¶ 38.
`
`
`
`PPetitioners
`
`
`
`also statedd unequivoocally in tthe underlyying litigaation invollving
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the ’1477 Patent thhat mappinng requires an assocciation bettween the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`particular
`
`host
`
`devices
`
`
`
`and storagge. Ex. 20332 (Defs.’
`
`
`
`Markman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Br.) at 3 ((“One of orrdinary skiill in
`
`
`
`the art .. . . would
`
`
`
`understannd from thee plain lannguage annd contextt of the claaims
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that ‘mmap[ping]’
`
`requires
`
`
`
`specifyinng a parti
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`cular conffiguration——namely,
`
`
`
`the
`
`

`
`
`
`association between a particular workstation and a particular remote storage
`
`device”) (emphasis added); Ex. 2033 ¶ 29 (“[T]he storage router must ‘maintain’ a
`
`‘map’ that contains a specific ‘association’ between host devices on one side of the
`
`storage router and . . . storage devices on the other side of the storage
`
`router . . . .”).2 The special master in the co-pending litigation has recommended
`
`the District Court again adopt this construction. Ex. 2034 at 4.
`
`All parties agree that the map must identify precisely to which host the
`
`specified storage has been allocated. Whether phrased in terms of the ’147 Patent
`
`specification, the District Court proceedings or the construction proposed by
`
`Petitioners, the claimed mapping “between devices connected to the first transport
`
`medium and the storage devices” requires that the map specifically identify the
`
`host and storage so that the storage router can allocate storage to particular hosts.
`
`2.
`
`The “Access Controls”/“Controlling Access” Limitations
`
`Each of the independent claims also recites an “access controls” limitation:
`
`
`2 While not relevant to the current matter, Patent Owner notes that the specification
`
`is clear that the map may map hosts to “logical storage.” Ex. 1001, 4:33-35, 4:63-
`
`66 (describing allocating partitions and that partitions are “logical storage
`
`definitions”). Thus, “specific storage” in the map can be “specific” logical storage.
`
`See Levy ¶¶ 39-40.
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`
`
`“[a] supervisor unit operable to maintain a configuration . . . that implements
`
`access controls for storage space on the remote storage devices” (Claim 1); “a
`
`storage router . . . operable . . . to implement access controls for storage space on
`
`the storage devices” (Claim 6); “maintaining a configuration for remote storage
`
`devices . . . that implements access controls for storage space on the remote storage
`
`devices” (Claim 10); “[a] supervisor unit operable to control access from the
`
`device connected to the first transport medium to the remote storage device
`
`connected to the second transport medium” (Claim 14); “[an] access control device
`
`operable to . . . control access from the at least one device to the at least one
`
`storage device” (Claim 21); “implementing access controls for storage space on the
`
`storage device” (Claim 28); “[a] supervisor unit operable to . . . implement access
`
`controls” (Claim 34).3 The access controls of the ’147 Patent refer to controls that
`
`limit a device’s access to a specific subset of storage devices or sections of a single
`
`storage device according to a map. That is, the access controls are device-specific
`
`in that they limit a particular device’s access to specified storage according to the
`
`map. Levy ¶¶ 42-43. Thus, the storage router maintains a configuration that
`
`
`3 In the co-pending litigation involving Petitioners, Patent Owner and Petitioners
`
`agreed that “access controls” and “control access” should be construed consistently
`
`with each other. Ex. 2009 at 5-6.
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`
`
`includes a map so that the storage router can implement access controls.4
`
`As described in the specification, the storage router implements access
`
`controls/controls access according to the map so that the allocated storage can only
`
`be accessed by the host(s) associated with that storage in the map. See, e.g., id. at
`
`4:35-38 (“These subsets 66, 68, 70 and 72 can only be accessed by the associated
`
`workstation . . . .”) (emphasis added), 4:42-44 (“[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.”) (emphasis added). More particularly,
`
`the ’147 Patent provides access controls by controlling what virtual local storage
`
`
`4 There is no dispute that the access controls of the ’147 Patent are implemented
`
`according to a map between the host devices connected to the first transport
`
`medium and the storage devices. First, in the co-pending litigation, Petitioners
`
`proposed that “access controls” be construed to mean “[C]ontrols which limit a
`
`[device/Fibre Channel initiator device/workstation]’s access to a specific subset of
`
`storage devices or sections of a single storage device according to a map for the
`
`[device/Fibre Channel initiator device/workstation].” Ex. 2032 at 17 (emphasis
`
`added). Second, in the present matter, Petitioners confirm the link of access
`
`controls to the map by stating that mapping “facilitate[s] . . . access controls.” Pet.
`
`at 11; Ex. 1003 ¶ 20.
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`each hoost sees. Idd. at 4:60-666 (“Storaage router
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`56 providdes centraliized controol of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`what eaach worksttation 58 ssees as its
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`local drivve . . . . CConsequenttly, the stoorage
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`space coonsidered bby the worrkstation 58 to be its
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`local storaage is actuually a parttition
`
`
`
`(i.e., loggical storage definitiion) of a phhysically rremote stoorage devicce 60, 62 oor 64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`connectted throughh storage roouter 56.”)); see also
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Levy ¶ 43
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inn Figure 3, each worrkstation 58 on commmon Fibre
`
`
`
`
`
`Channel innterconnecct 52
`
`
`
`
`
`sees diffferent storrage. As exxplained byy Dr. Levyy, storage rrouter 56 shhows availlable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5:62-65; LLevy
`
`
`
`subset 666, Worksttation A is “shown” sstorage subbset 66 by
`
`
`