Patent No. 7,120,835
`Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________
`
`Apple Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Far Stone Tech. Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,120,835
`Issue Date: October 10, 2006
`Title: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT HAVING
`A PROMPT ACCESS FUNCTION
`AND RELATED METHOD
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. ______
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANDREW HOSPODOR, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................................................... 1
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ...................................................................... 4
`
`IV. DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS ............................................................. 4
`
`V. STATE OF THE ART .................................................................................... 6
`
`VI. THE '835 PATENT ........................................................................................ 7
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... 7
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF PRIOR ART .................................................................. 11
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,785,786 to Gold (“Gold”) ........................................... 11
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 5,638,509 to Dunphy (“Dunphy”) ................................ 13
`
`C. Symantec Ghost Implementation Guide (“Ghost”) .............................. 16
`
`
`la-1274886
`
`i
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 2
`
`

`

`I, Andrew Hospodor, make this declaration in connection with the
`
`proceeding identified above.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Apple Inc. (“Apple”) as a
`
`technical expert in connection with the proceeding identified above. I submit this
`
`declaration in support of Petitioner’s Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition”)
`
`of United States Patent No. 7,120,835 (“the '835 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being paid at an hourly rate for my work on this matter. I have
`
`no personal or financial stake or interest in the outcome of the present proceeding.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to this
`
`declaration. Following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and
`
`professional experience:
`
`4.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Engineering
`
`from Lehigh University in 1981, a Master of Science degree in Computer Science
`
`from Santa Clara University in 1986, and a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering from
`
`Santa Clara University in 1994. My Ph.D. emphasis was in storage architecture
`
`and systems. My dissertation was entitled: “A Study of Prefetch in Caching SCSI
`
`Disk Drive Buffers.”
`
`
`la-1274886
`
`1
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 3
`
`

`

`5.
`
`I have been part of the data storage and backup/recovery industry for
`
`over 25 years. My experience in the design of and implementation of
`
`backup/recovery systems began in 1983 while working for Scientific Micro
`
`Systems in Mountain View, California. Here, I implemented firmware that
`
`controlled cartridge tape drive transports, as well as wrote software that saved and
`
`restored data. In 1994, at Quantum in Milpitas, California, I was part of the
`
`technical team that integrated the Digital Linear Tape (DLT) product family into
`
`the Quantum product line. Here, I performed testing and integration, suggested
`
`modifications to the architecture and was responsible for establishing and
`
`achieving performance levels in data backup using DLT. I later participated in the
`
`integration of DLT into robotic tape libraries that were unveiled shortly before
`
`year 2000.
`
`6.
`
`I have also been involved in firmware engineering for disk drive and
`
`tape drive controllers, including implementation of command processing, error
`
`correction, and buffer management. I have also focused on simulation and
`
`implementation of disk and tape drives at Quantum Corp. I have been involved in
`
`the architecting of network storage devices that included disk drives, tape drives,
`
`network switches, routers and software. I have also been involved in the
`
`simulation and implementation of disk interfaces, including ATA, SCSI, and Fibre
`
`Channel.
`
`
`la‐1274886
`
`
`2
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 4
`
`

`

`7.
`
`I have taught graduate and undergraduate courses at Santa Clara
`
`University. After receiving my Master’s degree in 1986, I joined the Institute for
`
`Information Storage Technology as an Adjunct Lecturer, then later as a Research
`
`Fellow. I have taught courses in Computer Architecture, Storage Architecture,
`
`Hard Disk and Floppy Disk Controller Design, and Grid Computing. I am
`
`currently the Executive Director of the Storage Systems Research Center at
`
`University of California, Santa Cruz. Here, I oversee the research of faculty,
`
`graduate students, post-doctoral scholars, and continue to work with industrial
`
`sponsors in the data storage industry as well as the National Science Foundation.
`
`At UCSC, I also continue to work on archival backup and recovery. My latest
`
`project involves the deduplication of the human genome. Here, we will back up
`
`the whole genome sequences of individuals onto consumer grade storage devices,
`
`such as flash memory “thumb” drives and cell phones.
`
`8.
`
`I am a named inventor on twelve U.S. patents related to data storage
`
`that have been cited as prior art in 183 other patents. I have authored numerous
`
`publications in reference journals, industry periodicals, and am often cited by my
`
`peers in textbooks and journal publications. I have presented to the American
`
`National Standards Institute (ANSI) committee on the Small Computer Systems
`
`Interface (SCSI), the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the SCSI
`
`
`la‐1274886
`
`
`3
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 5
`
`

`

`Forum, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Systems
`
`Design and Network Conference, and many other storage related conferences.
`
`9.
`
`In summary, I have a deep familiarity with data storage and
`
`backup/recovery devices, systems, interfaces, and architectures, and had first-hand
`
`experience with these technologies at the relevant time of the '835 Patent
`
`invention and before.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`10.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed, among other things,
`
`the following materials: (a) the '835 patent and its prosecution history;
`
`(b) prosecution history of U.S. Patent App. No. 10/241,626; (c) U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,785,786 to Gold (“Gold”); (d) U.S. Patent No. 5,638,509 to Dunphy
`
`(“Dunphy”);
`
`(e) Symantec Ghost
`
`Implementation Guide;
`
`(f) Farstone
`
`Technology’s November 2014 Opening Claim Construction Brief; and (g) Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review of the '835 patent.
`
`IV. DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS
`
`11.
`
`I have been informed and understand that claims are construed from
`
`the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed
`
`invention, and that during this proceeding, claims are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable construction consistent with the specification.
`
`
`la‐1274886
`
`
`4
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 6
`
`

`

`12.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim is invalid because
`
`of anticipation when every element of the claim is described in a single prior art
`
`reference, such that the elements are arranged as required by the claim. I have
`
`been informed and understand the description of a claim element in a prior art
`
`reference can be express or inherent. For a prior art reference to describe a claim
`
`element inherently, the claim element must be necessarily present. Probabilities
`
`are not sufficient to establish inherency.
`
`13.
`
`I have also been informed and understand that the subject matter of a
`
`patent claim is obvious if the differences between the subject matter of the claim
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which the subject matter pertains. I have also been informed that the
`
`framework for determining obviousness involves considering the following
`
`factors: (i) the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) the differences between the
`
`prior art and the claimed subject matter; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`and (iv) any objective evidence of non-obviousness. I understand that the
`
`claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`if, for example, it results from the combination of known elements according to
`
`known methods to yield predictable results, the simple substitution of one known
`
`element for another to obtain predictable results, use of a known technique to
`
`
`la‐1274886
`
`
`5
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 7
`
`

`

`improve similar devices in the same way or applying a known technique to a
`
`known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. I have also been
`
`informed that the analysis of obviousness may include recourse to logic,
`
`judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`that does not necessarily require explication in any reference.
`
`14.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the
`
`'835 patent at the relevant date discussed below would have an undergraduate
`
`degree in computer science or equivalent and one year of experience in the design
`
`and implementation of backup/recovery systems.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed that the relevant date for considering the
`
`patentability of the claims of the '835 patent is Feb. 1, 2002. I have not analyzed
`
`whether the '835 patent is legally entitled to this filing date. I may refer to this
`
`time frame as the “relevant date” or the “relevant time frame.” Based on my
`
`education and experience in the field of computer science set forth above, I
`
`believe I am more than qualified to provide opinions about how one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art by the relevant date in 2002 would have interpreted and understood
`
`the '835 patent and the prior art discussed below.
`
`V.
`
`STATE OF THE ART
`
`16.
`
`In around 2002, backup and recovery of computer data were
`
`commonplace and well understood. Techniques such as
`
`image backup,
`
`
`la‐1274886
`
`
`6
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 8
`
`

`

`incremental backup, and point-in-time backup, along with associated data
`
`recovery, were supported in software packages available from a variety of
`
`vendors, including Norton (now part of Symantec). Furthermore, the backup and
`
`restore of computer data was no longer bound to a particular operating system.
`
`Backup software in the 2002 era was capable of recognizing the native file
`
`formats of data from different computers and was not dependent upon any one
`
`operating system.
`
`VI. THE '835 PATENT
`
`17. The claims of the '835 patent are directed to backup and recovery
`
`systems for computer data. However, the '835 patent lacks any description of
`
`actual backup and recovery functions. Furthermore, there are no algorithms
`
`described in support of these functions. The patent relies heavily upon two
`
`generic figures (FIG. 1 and 2) and lacks flowcharts or pseudo-code to describe the
`
`interactions of the contents within the figures. One skilled in the art would realize
`
`that a generic figure of a computing system is not sufficient to implement a
`
`backup and recovery system for computer data.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`18.
`
`I understand and have been informed that when a claim uses the word
`
`“means” and there is no definite structure corresponding to the function of the
`
`
`la‐1274886
`
`
`7
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 9
`
`

`

`claim limitation, then the claim is presumed to be “means-plus-function” language
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`
`19.
`
`I understand and have been informed that the first step in construing
`
`a means-plus-function limitation is to identify the function recited in the claim,
`
`which includes construing any terms in the recited function. The next step is to
`
`identify the corresponding structure set forth in the written description that is
`
`clearly linked to and necessary to perform the particular function set forth in the
`
`claim because the means-plus-function term will cover only the corresponding
`
`structure, material, or acts in the specification and equivalents thereof. For
`
`corresponding structure involving a computer algorithm, I understand and have
`
`been informed that the specification must at least disclose an algorithm to perform
`
`the recited function (not just a discussion of the end result) and it is insufficient to
`
`rely solely on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such
`
`algorithm.
`
`20. Claim 1 of the '835 patent contains the phrase “selecting means, said
`
`selecting means selecting a status corresponding to said processing system at the
`
`time of creation of each of said at least one recovery unit.” I am informed by
`
`counsel that this is a means-plus-function limitation. I concur that this limitation
`
`is a means-plus-function limitation because the claim language uses the term
`
`
`la‐1274886
`
`
`8
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 10
`
`

`

`“means” and the claim language itself does not provide any structure for
`
`performing the function.
`
`21. The recited function for this means element is set forth in the claim
`
`as: “selecting a status corresponding to said processing system at the time of
`
`creation of each of said at least one recovery unit.”
`
`22. However, I have reviewed the specification and did not find any
`
`structure disclosed in the specification that performs the recited function.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that in the Co-Pending Litigation the Patent Owner has
`
`asserted that the structure in the specification for performing the recited function
`
`is “a user interface and input devices as described and shown in the '835 patent.”
`
`(Farstone Technology’s November 2014 Opening Claim Construction Brief at
`
`15.)
`
`24.
`
`I disagree with the Patent Owner’s assertion because structure that
`
`the Patent Owner attempts to identify is not structure shown in the specification
`
`that is linked to the selecting means or the recited function for the selecting
`
`means. In fact, the specification of the '835 patent explicitly indicates that the
`
`user-operating interface, which can be a keyboard or mouse, is not the selecting
`
`means. The specification explains that “displaying system 20 may include a user-
`
`operating interface,” and the “user-operating interface can be a keyboard, a
`
`mouse, or the like.” (5:32-36.) And in the next paragraph the specification goes
`
`
`la‐1274886
`
`
`9
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 11
`
`

`

`on to also explain that “displaying system 20 may have a selecting means,” and
`
`the “selecting means selects a status corresponding to the processing system.”
`
`(5:37-40.) Thus, the specification makes clear that displaying system 20 may
`
`have two separate and distinct elements: (1) a user-operating interface (which can
`
`be a keyboard or mouse), and (2) a selecting means. The user-operating interface
`
`and selecting means are therefore not the same thing, and the user-operating
`
`interface is not clearly linked as structure that performs the recited function.
`
`25. Moreover, the recited function of the selecting means is something
`
`that in the abstract could be performed by software or hardware or some
`
`combination of both. However, in addition to not clearly linking any hardware in
`
`the specification to performance of the recited function, there is no algorithm
`
`disclosed for performing the operation of selecting the status corresponding to the
`
`processing system.
`
`26. Though the specification does not disclose corresponding structure
`
`for performing the recited function, for purposes of applying prior art to the claims
`
`of the '835 patent, I have been instructed to consider this claim term broadly to
`
`include user interfaces and input devices such as a keyboard and mouse.
`
`
`la‐1274886
`
`
`10
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 12
`
`

`

`VIII. ANALYSIS OF PRIOR ART
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,785,786 to Gold (“Gold”)
`27. Gold discloses a system for backing up and recovering computer
`
`equipment, such as a general purpose computer. The Gold system includes a
`
`client computer 210 and a backup apparatus 240, both of which include software
`
`modules that coordinate to perform the backup and recovery of client computer
`
`210. Gold explicitly discloses that the software modules on client computer 210
`
`are stored on the hard drive (4:39-44), therefore it would have been obvious to one
`
`of skill in the art to apply the same known technique (i.e., storing software
`
`modules on a hard drive) to another aspect of the same invention (i.e., storing the
`
`operating system on a hard drive) to achieve the same predictable results.
`
`28. Gold discloses that client computer 210 runs the Windows operating
`
`system. (4:48-50.) Storing the operating system on the hard drive was standard
`
`practice at the time of the invention. For example, Dunphy (discussed below)
`
`discusses a “hard drive that contains the operating system” at column 7, lines 65-
`
`67.
`
`29. Gold discloses that, when a backup is performed, client computer 210
`
`creates a “Directory Tree File” (DTF) that contains “a ‘snap-shot’ of all files
`
`present in the file system at the time” the DTF is created. (8:36-38; 11:26-28;
`
`12:33-34.) The backup apparatus 240 creates “Backup Directory Files” (BDF) to
`
`
`la‐1274886
`
`
`11
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 13
`
`

`

`hold the backup data. The DTF and BDF correspond to what the patent calls a
`
`“recovery unit.”
`
`30. Gold also discloses a graphical user interface that allows the user to
`
`select and display a particular status of the computer system that existed when the
`
`corresponding backup was created. (8:43-58, 14:6-11.) The Gold system
`
`generates and displays in the graphical user interface a directory tree of all files
`
`that can be restored. (8:43-45; 8:65-9:3.) Gold does not explicitly disclose input
`
`devices such as a keyboard or mouse in Fig. 2, but it would have been plainly
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that
`
`client computer 210 included such devices. Furthermore, Gold discusses at
`
`column 4, lines 47-49 that the client is a general purpose computer, such as a PC
`
`running the Windows NT 4.0 operating system, and it would have been obvious
`
`that the client computers would necessarily be controlled using such conventional
`
`user interface devices. Furthermore, a mouse has been a standard input device for
`
`personal computers since at least the 1980s, and a keyboard has been a standard
`
`input device since well before that. For example, Dunphy (discussed below)
`
`discusses a mouse and keyboard as input devices at column 8, line 30.
`
`Accordingly, using input devices such as a keyboard and mouse in selecting the
`
`status in Gold would simply be applying a known technique at the time of the
`
`alleged invention.
`
`
`la‐1274886
`
`
`12
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 14
`
`

`

`31.
`
`I have reviewed the discussions in the Petition regarding what Gold
`
`discloses and I agree. I have also reviewed the claim chart and discussions in the
`
`Petition identifying where each of the claim elements is shown in Gold and I agree
`
`with those identifications.
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 5,638,509 to Dunphy (“Dunphy”)
`
`32. Dunphy discloses a backup/recovery system that “maintains an index
`
`of all data file activity on a computer system 1 and stores copies of data files in a
`
`manner to enable a user to recreate the state of the computer system 1 at any
`
`selected point in time.” (3:3-8.) Dunphy also discloses that computer system 1
`
`includes an operating system 19. (Fig. 1; 3:36-38.) Furthermore, the data storage
`
`and protection apparatus 10 of the Dunphy system includes software to perform
`
`the backup/recovery operations. (3:2-10; 1:58-65.) A person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would understand that the software, including the operating system, would
`
`be stored on the hard drive. For example, Dunphy describes a personal computer
`
`having a “ hard drive that contains the operating system, all application programs
`
`and user data files.” (7:65-8:1.)
`
`33. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the invention that the operating system 19 in Dunphy could be, for
`
`example, the Windows operating system. Windows was a widely used and well-
`
`known operating system at the time of the invention. A great number of similar
`
`
`la‐1274886
`
`
`13
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 15
`
`

`

`backup/recovery systems worked with the Windows operating system (e.g., the
`
`system in Gold), and it would have been obvious to also use Windows in the
`
`Dunphy system, as this is merely using a known component with a similar system
`
`to achieve predictable results.
`
`34. As shown in Figure 4 of Dunphy, the Dunphy system includes a
`
`graphical user interface for displaying backed up data. A person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention would have understood, or at least found it
`
`obvious, that to display the backed up data, the information from the recovery unit
`
`(i.e., the backup file system in Dunphy) would be loaded into the processing
`
`system. In particular, Dunphy discloses that the “data storage and protection
`
`system 10 writes a directory listing of all the data files that have been written on to
`
`the backup media 21 in this operation on the backup media 21, at the end of the
`
`backup media 21 so it can be simply and quickly located.” (7:22-27.) The
`
`Dunphy system uses the directory listing to identify which files were on computer
`
`system 1 at a particular point in time. (7:46-53.) It would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art that the directory listing would be loaded into
`
`the processing system to display the backed up data as shown in Fig. 4. To do so
`
`would be in line with the well-known, conventional approach to loading and
`
`displaying a file system in a directory tree UI (e.g., Gold loads the DTF), and is
`
`thus applying a known technique to similar devices to achieve predictable results.
`
`
`la‐1274886
`
`
`14
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 16
`
`

`

`35. The graphical user interface in Dunphy allows a user to select and
`
`display a status of computer system 1 at a particular point in time. (Abstract;
`
`8:19-33; 9:53-58.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, or
`
`would have at least found it obvious, that the selected point in time could be the
`
`time of creation of a recovery unit. This is a common sense option that would
`
`have been obvious to try. Further, many similar systems at the time of the
`
`invention allowed users to view system status at the time of a particular backup.
`
`While Dunphy may allow selection of any point in time, it would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to also include selection of the
`
`points in time when a recovery unit was created. This is simply applying a known
`
`technique to a similar system to achieve predictable results.
`
`36. Dunphy discloses the ability to backup and restore “the entire data
`
`file memory of computer system 1” by making “a dump of the contents of the
`
`hard drive.” (5:1-8.) One skilled in the art would recognize that such a copy of
`
`the entire contents of the hard drive would contain hardware configuration
`
`information. At the time of the invention, it was well known and routine to store
`
`hardware configuration information on the hard drive. For example, the Windows
`
`operating system stores hardware configuration information in registry files on the
`
`hard drive. It would have been obvious to apply this in Dunphy, as it is use of a
`
`known technique to achieve a predictable result.
`
`
`la‐1274886
`
`
`15
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 17
`
`

`

`C.
`Symantec Ghost Implementation Guide (“Ghost”)
`37. The Symantec Ghost Implementation Guide is a user manual for the
`
`Symantec Ghost system. “Symantec Ghost is a cloning function that creates an
`
`image file containing all of the information required to recreate a complete disk or
`
`partition.” (Ghost at 19.) “Image files store and compress images of model
`
`system configurations (computers with all of the necessary software installed and
`
`configured), or create backup copies of complete drives or partitions.” (Id.)
`
`38. The Ghost software is installed on a personal computer and works
`
`with the Windows operating system. (Ghost at 17, 26, 36.) A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand that the software, including the operating system,
`
`would be stored on the hard drive as storing the operating system on the hard
`
`drive was standard practice at the time of the invention. For example, Dunphy
`
`describes a personal computer including a“ hard drive that contains the operating
`
`system, all application programs and user data files.” (7:65-8:1.) Furthermore,
`
`Ghost also suggests that the operating system is installed on the hard drive.
`
`(Ghost at 198 (“1 If the operating system is DOS/Win9x, insert a blank, formatted
`
`floppy disk into drive A.; 2 Type the following: C:\> sys c: a:)”).)
`
`
`la‐1274886
`
`
`16
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 18
`
`

`

`39-
`
`IC'rltost discloses that the hookup image created contains Windows
`
`registry files. A person of ordinal}.r skill in the art would have understood that
`
`windows regislrtr flies contain hardware configuration infonnation. The fact that
`
`Windows registry files oontain hardware configuration infonnarion was well-
`
`known by persons of skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`l deciare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are flue and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and that
`
`these statements were made with knowledge that willfisl false statements and the
`
`like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under section lflfl]
`
`ofTitie 13 of the United States Code.
`
`Dated: January 23, 2015
`
`'
`
`Andrew Hospodor
`
`Inert-ass
`
`1T
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Page 19
`
`Apple Inc. Exhibit 1002 Page 19
`
`

`

`Andrew David Hospodor, Ph.D.
`P.O. Box 1196, Los Gatos CA. 95031-1196
` 408.921.5099 andy.hospodor@ieee.org
`
`
`
`
`An accomplished executive and engineer experienced in both startups and
`Fortune 500 companies with extensive background in distributed systems,
`applications and storage. Strengths include industrial-academic relationship building,
`intellectual property development, strategic and technical leadership.
`
`
`
`• Ph.D. Computer Engineering , Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA.
` Emphasis in storage architecture and embedded systems. Minor in business administration.
` Dissertation: A Study of Prefetch in Caching SCSI Disk Drive Buffers.
`
`
`Education
`
` •
`
` M.S. Computer Science, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA.
` Concentrated studies in networking, communications, data storage, memory hierarchies,
`interfaces, computer architecture, performance measurement, and error correction coding.
`
`
`• B.S. Computer Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem PA.
` Emphasis in computer programming, architecture, physics, mathematics.
`
`
`
`
`Experience
`
`
`Storage System Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA.
`Executive Director and, Project Scientist
`Engaged in research and funding related activities. Worked with faculty to develop funding strategies
`and manage industrial sponsors. Participated in NSF and UC led events designed to attract research
`funding into the data storage space. Built relationships with industrial and academic contacts. Advised
`graduate students and reviewed their results pre-publication.
`
`BookRenter, San Jose, CA.
`CTO
`
`2009 – present
`
`2006 – 2008
`
`Led the team that created the first nationwide book rental service. Defined the architecture of a new
`web 2.0 platform for e-business that combines distributed computing with Ruby on Rails (RoR),
`mySQL, and web services of partners like Amazon, Barnes&Noble and UPS. Formed capitalization
`strategy, managed fund raising activities and created partnerships to maximize equity leverage.
`Responsible for all technical aspects of www.bookrenter.com from hiring to operations.
`
`
`GridPlan, Santa Clara, CA.
`Architect
`Introduced the first open source capacity planning tool for Grid Computing that enabled both
`Enterprise, e-business and Scientific environments to accurately access the value of computational
`grids, cloud computing, large-scale Linux clusters, blade servers and distributed compute farms.
`Provided the crucial ability to assess cost-performance of interconnection strategies (such as Infini-
`Band, 10 Gigabit Ethernet, Myrinet), processors (such as XEON, Opteron), storage, switches and
`middleware. Written entirely in java, GridPlan successfully simulated up to 4096 nodes and created an
`XML based link-map for systems integrators. Established partnerships with Grid Global Forum
`(GGF), hardware vendors, independent software vendors and open source providers to provide best-of-
`breed planning technology toIT shops.
`
`2003 - present
`
`
`Corosoft, Inc., Cupertino, CA.
`CTO, Founder
`Developed a novel approach to managing enterprise e-business applications (databases, appservers,
`webservers, file services, network services). Introduced Corosoft virtualization software that
`aggregates resources (servers, networks, storage) behind application services. Built team, raised $3.8M
`funding, delivered product to market. Established partnerships in enterprise management (BMC, HP),
`grid computing (Platform, IBM), network content management (F5) and software (Oracle, Microsoft).
`Extended strategy to include power management (ACPI) middleware, streaming, clustering file
`systems, volume management and flexible storage architectures.
`
`2001 - 2003
`
`
`
`Declaration of Andrew Hospodor, Ph.D. Exhibit A Page 1
`
`

`

`Andrew David Hospodor, Ph.D.
`Curriculum Vitae of
`Page 2 of 7
`__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`Western Digital Corp., San Jose, CA.
`1999 - 2001
`Vice President, Systems Architecture
`Responsible for all aspects of technology in the formation of new business units. Reported to the Chief
`Technical Officer and VP of Business Development. Identified new technologies for Enterprise
`Storage Area Networking (SAN) and Audio/Video streaming storage networking systems, most notably
`switched fabrics. Drove strategic relationships with well-established software companies such as
`Microsoft and Veritas for existing technology. Identified and structured relationships with partners and
`performed due diligence on emerging key technology startups that led to capital investment of $2-5M.
`Created detailed business plans including capitalization, development and staffing requirements.
`
`Quantum Corp., Milpitas, CA.
`Storage Architect, Director, Network Storage Architecture Group
`Manager, Advanced Storage Applications Group
`Led team that developed the first low-cost Network Attached Storage (NAS) disk and tape products.
`Coordinated company wide technology direction for storage management, file systems, device drivers,
`BIOs, and APIs for FibreChannel (FC), Gigabit Ethernet (GbE), InfiniBand (IB), Redundant Arrays of
`Independent Disks, etc. Responsible for technical relationships with strategic partners, such as
`Microsoft, Legato, Veritas, Oracle. Supported business units with cross connects to Compatibility Lab,
`Design Engineering, Sales and Marketing. Participated in customer investigations of new storage
`applications and developed requirements for new storage markets. Managed architecture and
`performance labs to provide real data for product planning. Created and managed storage simulator
`team that laid groundwork for delivery of SCSI, IDE, ATA-33, to 133 interfaces, ultimately resulting in
`net savings of $50M+. Participated in architecting, planning and specifica