Paper No.
`
`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
`
`________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`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
`
`________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1
`
`II. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ....................................................... 1
`
`III. REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS ............................................ 1
`
`A. Summary.................................................................................................... 1
`
`B. Patent Owner Fails to Apply the Broadest Reasonable Construction ............. 2
`
`1. Patent Owner Has Improperly Narrowed the “Map” Limitation............2
`
`2. Patent Owner Has Improperly Narrowed the “Access Control”
`Limitation ...................................................................................................8
`
`C. The Cited Prior Art Teaches the Claims of the ’147 Patent ...................... 11
`
`1. Patent Owner Ignores the Express Teachings of the CRD-5500
`User Manual .............................................................................................11
`
`2.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 6, 10, 14, 21, 28, and 34 are Invalid ................13
`
`a) Under Any Interpretation the CRD-5500 Manual and HP Journal
`Disclose the “Map” Limitation ...........................................................13
`
`b) Under Any Interpretation the CRD-5500 Manual and HP Journal
`Disclose the “Access Control” Limitation...........................................17
`
`c) The CRD-5500 Manual and HP Journal Disclose the “Allow
`Access” Limitation .............................................................................20
`
`3. Dependent Claims 2, 7, and 11 are Invalid..........................................21
`
`4. Dependent Claims 15, 22, 29, and 35 are Invalid ................................22
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`5. Dependent Claims 17, 24, 31, and 36 are Invalid ................................22
`
`D. Patent Owner Has Not Shown Objective Evidence of Nonobviousness ... 22
`
`1. Patent Owner’s Router Sales Do Not Establish Commercial
`Success .....................................................................................................23
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Licenses Do Not Establish Commercial Success........24
`
`3. Long-Felt Need...................................................................................25
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................25
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case Law
`
`Autel U.S. Inc., et al. v. Bosch Automotive Service Solutions,
`IPR2014-00183, Paper 59 (PTAB 2015)……………………………….…………15
`
`In re Allen, 324 F.2d 993(CCPA 1963) ……………………………….…………..25
`
`In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .……….……….…23
`
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573(Fed. Cir. 1995) ……………………………..……24
`
`In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996). ………………………………23, 24, 25
`
`In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ………………………………...……18
`
`In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). ………………………………..……15
`
`In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181(Fed. Cir. 1993)). …………………………..……21
`
`Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc.,
`392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ………………………………………………...25
`
`Joy Techs., Inc. v. Manbeck,
`751 F.Supp. 225 (D.D.C. 1990). ……………………………….…….…….……23
`
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009). …………………………………….………...…25
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23………………………………………………………………..........1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)……………………………………………………………...…2
`
`v
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner filed its Response to Petition on May 26, 2015 (“Response,”
`
`Paper 20). Petitioners submit this reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioners request cancellation of claims 1-39 of U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`(“the ’147 Patent”) by way of this inter partes review.
`
`III. REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS
`A.
`Summary
`In its Response, Patent Owner repeatedly asserts that the CRD-5500 Manual
`
`does not teach mapping storage “to particular hosts.” See, e.g., Resp. at 1
`
`(emphasis in original). These assertions contradict the explicit teachings of the
`
`CRD-5500 Manual: “By using the controller's Host LUN Mapping feature, you can
`
`assign redundancy groups to a particular host.” CQ-1004, p. 1-2 (emphasis
`
`added). Even the name of the CRD-5500’s mapping feature—“Host LUN
`
`Mapping”—confirms that the CRD-5500 was specifically designed to perform
`
`mapping and access controls on a per-host basis. To avoid these clear teachings of
`
`the prior art, Patent Owner seeks to improperly narrow the “map” and “access
`
`control” limitations by reading in requirements that contradict the claim language,
`
`lack support in the specification, and exclude the actual embodiments disclosed in
`
`the ’147 Patent.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`Patent Owner Fails to Apply the Broadest Reasonable Construction
`B.
`In an inter partes review, the Board gives claims their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner Has Improperly Narrowed the “Map”
`Limitation
`Patent Owner does not offer its own construction of the “map” limitation in its
`
`Response, but nevertheless attempts to narrow the limitation with requirements that
`
`do not find support in the claim language or specification. See Resp. at 8, 10. In
`
`particular, Patent Owner asserts that “the map must identify precisely to which host
`
`the specified storage has been allocated.” See, e.g., Resp. at 10 (emphasis added); see
`
`also id. at 8 (“the ‘map’ must identify within the map the precise host to which
`
`storage has been allocated within the map.”) (emphasis in original). According to
`
`Patent Owner, a host identifier in the map is not “precise” unless it intrinsically
`
`identifies a particular host regardless of changes in physical cabling. See, e.g., Resp. at
`
`20-21, 37-38. In Patent Owner’s words, the identifier must be so inherently tied to the
`
`host, for example, that the map itself has a “concept of the particular computer that is
`
`‘Bill’s computer’.” Id. at 38. Patent Owner’s interpretation is not the broadest
`
`reasonable construction because (i) the specification merely requires an association
`
`between devices and storage (and not a particular map with specific characteristics),
`
`and (ii) the requirement of precise identifiers intrinsically tied to hosts would exclude
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`the host identifiers actually used in the mapping of the ’147 Patent—i.e., temporary
`
`intermediary identifiers. See, e.g., CQ-1001, 8:7-10; 6:57-61.
`
`First, the ’147 specification simply teaches associating hosts and storage and
`
`is silent as to the specific manner in which such associations are created. As
`
`illustrated in the portions of the specification cited by the Patent Owner, the
`
`specification merely teaches associating hosts and storage through non-specific
`
`“mapping techniques.” See Resp. at 8 (citing CQ-1001, 4:26-29, 35-39 (“‘storage
`
`allocated to each attached workstation’ through ‘mapping tables or other mapping
`
`techniques’ so that allocated storage ‘can only be accessed by the associated
`
`workstation’”) (emphasis in original)). And, as acknowledged by Patent Owner’s
`
`expert, the specification contains no implementation details or examples of
`
`mapping tables. CQ-1025, 93:14-16 (“there are . . . no specific implementations of
`
`the specific mapping table shown in the specification”). Accordingly, given that
`
`the specification simply teaches associating hosts and storage and is silent as to the
`
`specific manner in which such associations are created, Patent Owner’s narrow
`
`requirement of a map with specific characteristics cannot be the broadest
`
`reasonable construction.
`
`Second, according to Patent Owner, not only must the mapping include precise
`
`identifiers, but these precise identifiers must be intrinsically tied to a host. That is, a
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`host identifier must be perpetually associated, for example, with “the particular
`
`computer that is ‘Bill’s computer’,” such that the map can distinguish between Bill’s
`
`computer and any other computer regardless of any physical cabling reconfigurations.
`
`See, e.g., Resp. at 37-38; see also id. at 20-21 (asserting that the map must distinguish
`
`between “Host #1” and “Host #2” if the “administrator physically switched the
`
`cables”).
`
`The embodiments in the specification, however, do not describe identifiers
`
`intrinsically tied to particular hosts. Instead, the identifiers utilized in the ’147 Patent
`
`to represent hosts are intermediary identifiers that are temporarily associated with
`
`hosts for communication purposes—and, as such, may be associated with many
`
`different hosts over time, as acknowledged by Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Levy. CQ-
`
`1025 112:16-25, 134:11-20, 113:10-12; CQ-1001, 8:7-10. Patent Owner’s
`
`interpretation cannot be the broadest reasonable construction because it would exclude
`
`the actual identifiers used in the mapping of the ’147 Patent.
`
`In his deposition, Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Levy explained that “[i]n order to
`
`allocate storage, the storage router needs a way to refer to hosts.” CQ-1025, 124:23-
`
`24. In contrast to his declaration that colloquially refers to hosts by names such as
`
`“Bill’s computer” and “Lisa’s computer” (Resp. at 37-38), Dr. Levy admitted that the
`
`storage router actually represents hosts in the mapping by (i) an Arbitrated Loop
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`Physical Address (AL_PA) when hosts are connected to the storage router via Fibre
`
`Channel (CQ-1025, 124:20-25; 63:9-12; CQ-1001, 8:1-10, 7:21-24) and (ii) a SCSI
`
`ID when hosts are connected to the storage router via a SCSI bus (CQ-1025, 63:13-
`
`16, 124:20-125:8; CQ-1001, 6:57-62). As explained below, each of the AL_PA and
`
`SCSI ID identifiers described in the specification are intermediary identifiers that are
`
`temporarily associated with hosts for communication purposes; they are not
`
`intrinsically tied to any particular host, as required by Patent Owner’s interpretation of
`
`the “map” limitation.
`
`An Arbitrated Loop Physical Address (AL_PA) identifies a Fibre Channel port
`
`and creates a communication path between the storage router and the host associated
`
`with the port. See CQ-1025, 123:15-24; 87:24-88:6, 90:4-13. According to both the
`
`’147 specification and Dr. Levy, the AL_PA may be temporarily assigned to a port
`
`and “will change, either after power cycle or loop reconfiguration.” CQ-1001, 8:9-10;
`
`CQ-1025 112:16-25, 196:3-4. As a result, a given AL_PA may be associated with
`
`different hosts on an arbitrated loop before and after a reconfiguration, as
`
`acknowledged by Dr. Levy. CQ-1025, 134:11-20 (referring to CQ-1023 in which the
`
`AL_PAs of Workstations A and B in Fig. 3 are switched). An identifier that may be
`
`associated with a different host after every reconfiguration does not identify any one
`
`particular host in the intrinsic manner required under Patent Owner’s interpretation.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`Dr. Levy further testified that a SCSI ID is adequate to represent a host with
`
`respect to the mapping claimed in the ’147 Patent. See CQ-1025, 63:13-16, 124:20-
`
`125:8. According to the SCSI-2 specification (cited by Dr. Levy in his declaration),
`
`however, a SCSI ID is not assigned to a host, but is instead assigned to a “host
`
`adapter” that “connects between a host system and the SCSI bus.” CQ-2037 at 31
`
`(emphasis added). A SCSI ID creates a communication path between the storage
`
`router and the host associated with the host adapter. CQ-1025, 123:15-24. And,
`
`because “you may have to reassign SCSI IDs when you reconfigure the system,” as
`
`explained by Dr. Levy, SCSI IDs are only temporarily associated with hosts. CQ-
`
`1025, 113:10-12. Accordingly, because a SCSI ID is an intermediary identifier that is
`
`temporarily associated with a host for communication purposes, it is not intrinsically
`
`tied to any particular host.
`
`Moreover, because a SCSI ID does not intrinsically identify any particular host,
`
`an administrator can transparently replace a host represented in the map by a SCSI
`
`ID with an entirely different host simply by assigning the replacement host the same
`
`SCSI ID. For example, with reference to Fig. 3 of the ’147 Patent (below), Dr. Levy
`
`testified that the actual identities of the workstations connected to the storage router
`
`are not relevant “from the point of view of the map.” CQ-1025, 199:2-200:17.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`’147 Patent, Fig. 3
`
`Specifically, when Dr. Levy was asked about replacing “Workstation A” in Fig. 3
`
`with a different computer, he admitted—and then confirmed during redirect—that
`
`from the point of view of the map the actual, real-world identity of computer
`
`connected to the storage router is irrelevant:
`
`A. Yes. Just to clarify, I mean, what I said was that if you have a map in
`which workstation A is represented by a SCSI ID 0 or 4 -- take your pick
`– and then you remove that computer and put another computer in its
`place which has an interface using the same SCSI ID, then from the
`point of view of the map, that system is workstation A in this case.
`
`CQ-1025, 200:10-17; see also CQ-1024 (swapping SCSI IDs of workstations).
`Accordingly, insofar as Patent Owner contends that the ’147 mapping must
`
`“precisely” identify a host in an intrinsic and permanent manner, Patent Owner’s
`
`interpretation is not supported by the specification and contradicts its own expert’s
`
`technical understanding. Patent Owner’s expert’s testimony is that the mapping
`
`includes representations of hosts that are “sufficient to identify a host for the purposes
`
`of the mapping,” such as the AL_PA and SCSI ID identifiers. See CQ-1025, 129:16-
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`17, 124:20-125:8, 63:9-16. As such, the broadest reasonable construction of the
`
`“map” limitation must be broad enough to encompass the embodiments of the
`
`specification in which a host is represented by an intermediary identifier that is
`
`temporarily associated with the host for communication purposes, and is not
`
`intrinsically tied to any particular host.
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner Has Improperly Narrowed the “Access
`Control” Limitation
`Like the “map” limitation, Patent Owner does not offer its own construction
`
`of the “access control” limitation. Instead, Patent Owner improperly narrows the
`
`District Court construction by reading in several requirements that ignore the claim
`
`language and exclude embodiments in the specification.
`
`Patent Owner first parrots the District Court construction stating that access
`
`controls are “controls that limit a device’s access to a specific subset of storage
`
`devices or sections of a single storage device according to a map.” Resp. at 11,
`
`compare with CQ-1026 at 14, 40. Patent Owner then asserts, however, that to meet
`
`the “access control” limitation, the prior art must additionally “provid[e] different
`
`storage access to different hosts.” Resp. at 36 (emphasis added). Not only is this
`
`requirement narrower than the District Court construction (which is silent as how
`
`storage must be allocated between different hosts), but it is also entirely
`
`inapplicable to independent claims 14, 21, 28, and 34, which only recite a single
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`host device. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s arguments that are predicated on
`
`multiple hosts attached to a common transport medium should be ignored with
`
`respect to at least claims 14, 21, 28, and 34. With respect to the remaining
`
`independent claims, Patent Owner’s reinterpretation excludes the global storage
`
`embodiment in the specification. Specifically, Patent Owner’s reinterpretation
`
`excludes the embodiment in Fig. 3 in which the mapping controls access to shared
`
`storage called global data 65, “which can be accessed by all the workstations 58.”
`
`CQ-1001, 4:31-32 (emphasis added); CQ-1025, 165:11-14. Thus, in contrast to
`
`Patent Owner’s requirement of “different storage access to different hosts,” Fig. 3
`
`describes the same storage access by different hosts.
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner seeks to read into the “access control” limitation
`
`a requirement that access to storage by particular hosts must be maintained
`
`between physical reconfigurations of the hosts. See Resp. at 19-20, 37-38.
`
`According to Patent Owner, if the storage accessible by hosts changes when the
`
`cables are physically reconfigured, the “access control” limitation is not met. See,
`
`e.g., Resp. at 19-20 (“if the administrator physically switched the cables . . . then
`
`Host #2 would now get access to Redundancy Group 0”); id. at 37 (“say Bill wants
`
`to get access to Lisa’s storage. All Bill has to do is connect his computer to the
`
`proper communications link . . .”). This reconfiguration requirement cannot be part
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`of the broadest reasonable construction because not only does it lack support in the
`
`broad wording of the claim itself—“implement access controls” / “control
`
`access”—but it also contradicts the embodiments in the specification that do not
`
`themselves maintain access controls between reconfigurations. For example, when
`
`Dr. Levy was asked about the consequences of reconfiguring Fig. 3 so that
`
`“Workstation A” is replaced with a different workstation assigned the same SCSI ID,
`
`as discussed above, he acknowledged that the replacement workstation would now be
`
`given access to Workstation A’s storage, thereby conceding that the access controls of
`
`Fig. 3 fail under Patent Owner’s interpretation.1 CQ-1025, 151:3-10. Accordingly,
`
`Patent Owner’s interpretation of “access controls” cannot be the broadest reasonable
`
`construction because it excludes embodiments in the specification (e.g., Fig. 3) that do
`
`not maintain access controls between physical reconfigurations.
`
`As such, Petitioners respectfully submit that the “access control” limitation
`
`should be at least as broad as the District Court’s construction of “controls which
`
`limit a [device]’s access to a specific subset of storage devices or sections of a
`
`single storage device according to a map.” CQ-1026 at 14, 40.
`
`1 This is a logical result given that the map does not actually include precise
`
`identifiers of hosts, but instead includes intermediary identifiers such as SCSI ID.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`C.
`
`The Cited Prior Art Teaches the Claims of the ’147 Patent
`1.
`Patent Owner Ignores the Express Teachings of the CRD-
`5500 User Manual
`In its Response, Patent Owner repeatedly asserts that the “CRD-5500
`
`Manual does not show how to map storage to particular hosts.” See, e.g., Resp. at
`
`1 (emphasis in original). Patent Owner is wrong. On its face, the CRD-5500
`
`Manual expressly and clearly teaches mapping and access control between subsets
`
`of storage (redundancy groups and RAID sets) and “particular” hosts:
`
` “By using the controller's Host LUN Mapping feature, you can assign
`
`redundancy groups to a particular host.” CQ-1004, p. 1-2 (emphasis added).
`
` “The controller's Host LUN Mapping feature makes it possible to map RAID
`
`sets differently to each host.” CQ-1004, p. 1-1 (emphasis added).
`
` “You make the same redundancy group show up on different LUNs to different
`
`hosts, or make a redundancy group visible to one host but not to another.” CQ-
`
`1004, p. 1-1 (emphasis added).
`
`Even the name of the mapping feature—“Host LUN Mapping”—confirms that the
`
`CRD-5500 was specifically designed to perform mapping and access controls on a
`
`per-host basis.
`
`Patent Owner attempts to marginalize these explicit teachings by instead
`
`focusing on the specific manner in which the CRD-5500 implements per-host
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`mapping and access control. See, e.g., Resp. at 14 (“[t]he Host LUN Mapping
`
`feature does not assign storage to specific hosts, but rather assigns storage to
`
`channels (i.e., ports on the CRD-5500).”). While Patent Owner is correct that hosts
`
`are connected to the CRD-5500 via host channels, and that the Host LUN Mapping
`
`utilizes the channels to map (see below), Patent Owner’s argument that “[t]he Host
`
`LUN Mapping does not include any identification of specific hosts and therefore
`
`does not—and cannot—assign specific hosts to storage” (Resp. at 15) is erroneous.
`
`In the CRD-5500, each Host LUN Mapping screen includes a distinct channel
`
`number that serves as a representation of the particular host connected to the
`
`channel. Specifically, the channel number in the Host LUN Mapping is how
`
`subsets of storage (“redundancy groups”) are allocated to the “particular” host
`
`associated to the channel:
`
`Mapping for the “HOST”
`Represented by “Channel 0”
`
`CQ-1004, p. 4-5
`(annotated)
`
`Representation
`of the host
`
`Storage mapped to host
`represented by “Channel 0”
`
`Patent Owner’s focus on the word “Channel”—as opposed to “HOST”—in
`
`the Host LUN Mapping screen is misplaced given the functional significance of
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`the channel number as a representation of a host. Just like the SCSI ID and AL_PA
`
`in the map of the ’147 Patent, the channel number is an intermediary identifier that
`
`creates a communication path to a host, facilitating the allocation of storage to that
`
`“particular” host. The channel number serves as a representation of a host in the
`
`map because it is “sufficient to identify a host for the purposes of the mapping.” CQ-
`
`1025, 129:16-17. Accordingly, the CRD-5500 Manual teaches mapping and access
`
`control between subsets of storage and “particular” hosts.
`
`2.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 6, 10, 14, 21, 28, and 34 are Invalid
`a)
`Under Any Interpretation the CRD-5500 Manual and
`HP Journal Disclose the “Map” Limitation
`
`The combination of the CRD-5500 Manual and the HP Journal render
`
`obvious the “map” limitation under both the broadest reasonable construction and
`
`Patent Owner’s improperly narrow construction to the extent it requires a map with
`
`specific characteristics.
`
`First, independent claims 1, 6, 10, 14, 21, 28, and 34 broadly recite either a
`
`“map” between one or more host devices and storage or the act of “mapping”
`
`between one or more host devices and storage. As discussed above, the CRD-5500
`
`Manual explicitly teaches a Host LUN Mapping feature that maps between
`
`“particular” hosts and redundancy groups and RAID sets (i.e., subsets of storage). See,
`
`e.g., CQ-1004, p. 1-2 (“By using the controller's Host LUN Mapping feature, you
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`can assign redundancy groups to a particular host”); see also id. at 1-1. Patent
`
`Owner attempts to dismiss the CRD-5500 Manual’s explicit disclosure of per-host
`
`mapping and access controls as the mere “effect” of the CRD-5500 configuration
`
`in which there is one host per channel. See Resp. at 30. Not only is this argument
`
`entirely inapplicable to independent claims 14, 21, 28, and 34—which recite the
`
`same single-host configuration as the CRD-5500—but it also presumes that
`
`mapping storage on a per-host basis is somehow an unexpected result of the
`
`configuration. As made clear throughout the Manual, mapping storage to
`
`“particular” hosts is the desired result of every configuration of the CRD-5500—
`
`hence the name “Host LUN Mapping.” In any event, a single configuration in the
`
`CRD-5500 Manual that discloses “assign[ing] redundancy groups to a particular
`
`host” (CQ-1004, p. 1-2) is sufficient to meet the claimed “map” limitation,
`
`regardless of any other disclosed configurations.
`
`Second, the CRD-5500 Manual discloses the “map” limitation even under
`
`Patent Owner’s improperly narrow construction to the extent it requires a map with
`
`specific characteristics. As explained above, the channel number in the Host LUN
`
`Mapping is a representation of the particular host connected to the channel, and is
`
`the means by which the CRD-5500 “assign[s] redundancy groups to a particular
`
`host.” CQ-1004, p. 1-2. Like the SCSI ID and AL_PA identifiers in the map of the
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`’147 Patent, the channel number is “sufficient to identify a host for the purposes of
`
`the mapping.” CQ-1025, 129:16-17.
`
`To the extent the CRD-5500 Manual does not disclose multiple hosts on the
`
`same transport medium, the HP Journal teaches connecting multiple hosts to a Fibre
`
`Channel arbitrated loop. CQ-1006, pp. 95-96. And, as set forth in the Petition, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`
`CRD-5500 Manual and HP Journal to produce the obvious, beneficial, and predictable
`
`result of utilizing a Fibre Channel module in the CRD-5500 to communicate with
`
`multiple hosts connected to a Fibre Channel transport medium (e.g., a Fibre Channel
`
`arbitrated loop). Pet. at 18-22 (citing CQ-1003 at ¶¶ 53-62). This is especially true in
`
`light of the CRD-5500 being specifically “designed to support” Fibre Channel. See
`
`CQ-1005 at 1. These teachings combined with the knowledge of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art render obvious a map that allocates storage to multiple hosts on the
`
`same transport medium. See Autel U.S. Inc., et al. v. Bosch Automotive Service
`
`Solutions, IPR2014-00183, Paper 59 at 11 (PTAB 2015) (“For an obviousness
`
`analysis, prior art references must be ‘considered together with the knowledge of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.’”) (quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1994)). Dr. Levy’s declaration and deposition testimony confirm this.
`
`Specifically, Dr. Levy provides in his declaration a graphic illustrating how
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`four hosts on a Fibre Channel arbitrated loop may be connected to the CRD-5500 via
`
`a Tachyon-based I/O module (i.e., the proposed combination). Ex. 2027, ¶ 87; Resp.
`
`at 35. When questioned about the operation this combination, Dr. Levy confirmed that
`
`every communication transmitted on the Fibre Channel loop identifies the sender (for
`
`instance, by using the sender’s AL_PA). CQ-1025, 119:17-19, 91:9-14. He explained
`
`that, as a result, when the Tachyon chip in the CRD-5500 receives a communication
`
`from a host, the sending host would be identifiable. Id. at 119:4-25. Dr. Levy
`
`additionally testified that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would know how to create data structures implementing a desired map between
`
`storage and hosts. CQ-1025, 220:4-14, 93:24-94:12. Accordingly, based on the
`
`testimony of Patent Owner’s own expert, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`know how to physically combine the references, know how such a combination
`
`would identify particular hosts on a Fibre Channel arbitrated loop, and would be able
`
`to create data structures implementing the CRD-5500’s goal of “assign[ing]
`
`redundancy groups to a particular host.” CQ-1004, 1-2. Petitioners’ expert Dr.
`
`Hospodor reached this same conclusion: “any hardware or software modifications to
`
`the components of the CRD-5500 necessary to keep them operating in their
`
`intended manner would have been well within the skills of one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art.” CQ-1003, ¶ 61.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`Therefore, the combination of the CRD-5500 Manual and the HP Journal
`
`renders obvious the “map” limitation not only under the broadest reasonable
`
`construction, but also under Patent Owner’s improperly narrow construction.
`
`b)
`
`Under Any Interpretation the CRD-5500 Manual and
`HP Journal Disclose the “Access Control” Limitation
`
`The combination of the CRD-5500 Manual and the HP Journal renders
`
`obvious the “access control” limitation under both the District Court’s construction
`
`and Patent Owner’s improperly narrow construction that requires “providing
`
`different storage access to different hosts.” Resp. at 34.
`
`First, as discussed above, the “access control” limitation in independent
`
`claims 1, 6, 10, 14, 21, 28, and 34 is broadly worded—“implement access
`
`controls” / “control access”—and should be interpreted as least as broadly as the
`
`District Court construction of “controls which limit a [device]’s access to a
`
`specific subset of storage devices or sections of a single storage device according
`
`to a map.” CQ-1026 at 14, 40. In that regard, the CRD-5500 Manual explicitly
`
`teaches using the Host LUN Mapping to “make a redundancy group visible to one
`
`host but not to another.” CQ-1004, p. 1-1, 4-5. Patent Owner asserts that these
`
`explicit teachings are “irrelevant” when multiple hosts are connected to the CRD-
`
`5500 by a common communication link, as purportedly illustrated in Dr. Levy’s
`
`bodily incorporation of Petitioners’ combination. See Resp. at 35-36; but see In re
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[A] determination of obviousness
`
`is based not on bodily incorporation of parts from one disclosed system into
`
`another”). However, independent claims 14, 21, 28, and 34 recite a single host
`
`connected to the storage router rather than multiple hosts—rendering this argument
`
`moot. With respect to the other independent claims, even Dr. Levy’s simplistic
`
`bodily incorporation still meets the “access control” limitation. Specifically, as
`
`confirmed by Dr. Levy during his deposition, each of the commonly-connected
`
`hosts is permitted access to the green subsets of storage but is denied access to the
`
`white subsets of storage in accordance with the Host LUN Mapping—i.e., each
`
`host’s access to storage is limited based on the mapping. CQ-1025, 164:17-165:2.
`
`Second, even under Patent Owner’s overly narrow interpretation that
`
`requires different storage for each host, the combination of the CRD-5500 Manual
`
`and the HP Journal render obvious the “access control” limitation. As explained
`
`above in association with the “map” limitation, an obvious analysis is not
`
`performed in a vacuum and must take into account the knowledge of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. See IPR2014-00183, Paper 59 at 11. Here, Patent Owner’s
`
`allegation that Petitioners’ combination cannot provide different storage to different
`
`hosts on the same communication link is erroneously based on Dr. Levy’s simplistic
`
`bodily incorporation (Resp. at 35) that does not take into account (i) that a Tachyon
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01544
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`chip in a CRD-5500 can distinguish between hosts on an arbitrated loop (CQ-1025,
`
`119:4-25), (ii) the CRD-5500 Manual’s teaching of per-host access controls (CQ-
`
`1004 at 1-1), and (iii) a person of ordinary skill in the art’s knowledge of how to
`
`create the data structures necessary to map between hosts and storage when given the
`
`functional requirement of per-host access controls (CQ-1025, 220:4-14, 93:24-94:12).
`
`See also CQ-1003 (Dr. Hospodor’s declaration), ¶ 61. When this knowledge is taken
`
`into account, the combination of the CRD-5500 Manual and the HP Journal render
`
`obvious providing different access to different hosts on the same transport medium.
`
`Patent Owner further attempts to show that the CRD-5500 does not disclose
`
`the “access control” limitation by using several straw man hypotheticals involving
`
`physical reconfiguration of hosts a
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
