UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`———————
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,051,147
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`———————
`
`
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`———————
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,051,147
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`———————
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`This Petition Presents the Same Grounds Which Are Presented in
`IPR2014-01544 ................................................................................................. 1
`II. Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest .............................................................................. 1
`B.
`Related Matters ....................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information .............................. 2
`III. Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 2
`IV. Relief Requested ............................................................................................... 3
`The Reasons for the Requested Relief ............................................................... 3
`V.
`Summary of Reasons .............................................................................. 3
`A.
`The ‘147 Patent ...................................................................................... 4
`B.
`Overview ...................................................................................... 4
`1.
`Prosecution History ..................................................................... 8
`2.
`Identification of Challenges .................................................................... 9
`Challenged Claims ........................................................................ 9
`1.
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ................................................ 9
`2.
`Claim Construction ...................................................................... 9
`3.
`Identification of How the Claims Are Unpatentable .................. 14
`4.
`Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 60
`
`C.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`This Petition Presents the Same Grounds Which Are Presented in
`IPR2014-01544
`The instant inter partes review petition presents challenges which are identical to
`
`those presented in IPR2014-01544. The petition in the instant case copies verbatim
`
`the challenges set forth in the petition in IPR2014-01544 (Paper No. 3) and relies
`
`upon the same evidence, including the same expert declaration. This petition is
`
`accompanied by a motion for joinder.
`
`II. Mandatory Notices
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`The real party-in-interest is Oracle Corporation.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review, IPR2014-01207, filed July 25, 2014, and
`
`IPR2014-01209, filed July 25, 2014; Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Quantum Corporation, 1-1
`
`4-cv-00 150, TXWD, filed February 18, 2014; Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. NetApp, Inc.,
`
`1-1 4-cv-00 149, TXWD, filed February 18, 2014; Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Cisco Systems,
`
`Inc., 1 -14-cv-00 148, TXWD, filed February 18, 2014; Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Huawei
`
`Technologies Co. Ltd. et al, 1-13-cv-0 1025, TXWD, filed November 26, 2013; Crossroads
`
`Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation, 1-13-cv-00895, TXWD, filed October 7, 2013. Also,
`
`(i) case nos. IPR2014-01 197 (filed July 23, 2014) and IPR2014-01226 (filed July 31,
`
`2014) have been filed against U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035, which is related to the ‘147
`
`patent; and (ii) case nos. IPR2014-01 177 (filed July 18, 2014) and IPR2014- 01463
`
`(filed Sept. 8, 2014) have been filed against U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041, which is related
`
`1
`
`
`
`to the ‘147 patent. Additionally, this petition refers to a claim construction order
`
`from Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3PAR, Inc., et. al., no. 1-10- cv-00652 (W.D. Tex. 2010),
`
`which is one of the district court litigations involving U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035,
`
`which is related to the ‘147 patent.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4), Petitioner provides the following
`
`designation of counsel:
`
`Scott A. McKeown (Backup Counsel)
`Reg. No. 42,866
`Oblon LLP
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`(703) 413-3000
`
`Greg H. Gardella (Lead Counsel)
`Reg. No. 46,045
`Oblon LLP
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`cpdocketgardella@oblon.com
`(703) 413-3000
`
`
`
`III. Grounds for Standing
`
`Petitioner certifies that is not estopped or barred from requesting inter partes
`
`review of the ‘147 Patent because this petition is accompanied by a motion for joinder.
`
`The one-year time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) does not apply to a request for joinder.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (final sentence) (“[t]he time limitation set forth in the preceding
`
`sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c)”); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122(b).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IV. Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner asks that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) review the
`
`accompanying prior art and analysis, institute a trial for inter partes review of claims
`
`1-39 (all claims) of the ‘147 Patent, and cancel those claims as invalid.
`
`V. The Reasons for the Requested Relief
`
`The full statement of the reasons for the relief requested is as follows:
`
`Summary of Reasons
`A.
`In short, the claims of the ‘147 Patent simply recite obvious combinations of
`
`network storage components with functionality that was well-known at the time of
`
`the ‘147 Patent invention. For example, each of the ‘147 Patent’s seven independent
`
`claims generally include limitations directed to (i) mapping workstations on one side
`
`of a storage router to specific storage devices on the other side of the storage router,
`
`and (ii) routing block-level data between the workstations and the storage devices
`
`based on the mapping so that the workstations may only access the particular storage
`
`devices to which they are mapped. The ‘147 Patent’s claims require the workstations
`
`and storage devices to be connected via Fibre Channel links. In one embodiment of
`
`the ‘147 Patent, the block-level data flowing between the workstations and storage
`
`devices conforms to the SCSI protocol. CQ-1001, 5:46-56; 6:31-56.
`
`These elements were well known in the prior art. For example, in 1996, CMD
`
`Technologies sold a storage router, the CRD-5500 SCSI RAID Controller, that
`
`performed the functions recited in the claims. According to the CRD-5500 user’s
`
`3
`
`
`
`manual, the CRD-5500 Controller (i) allows users to map hosts on one side of the
`
`controller to specific storage devices on the other side of the controller and then (ii)
`
`routes SCSI commands from hosts to storage devices based on the map, while
`
`blocking hosts from accessing storage devices to which they were not mapped.
`
`CQ-1004, pp. 1-1, 1-2, 1-11, 4-2, 4-5.
`
`In one configuration, the CRD -5500 Controller routes data between hosts on
`
`a SCSI bus link and storage devices on a SCSI bus link; however, the CRD-5500
`
`Controller was designed to support Fibre Channel links through the use of different
`
`I/O adapter cards. CQ-1004, pp. 1-1, 2-1, 2-4; CQ-1005, p. 1. One of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the ‘147 Patent would have been motivated to modify the
`
`CRD-5500 Controller to use Fibre Channel I/O adapter cards to take advantage of
`
`the benefits of the Fibre Channel protocol. See CQ-1003, JJ 53-62. In that regard,
`
`Fibre Channel was known to alleviate several limitations of SCSI buses (the default
`
`CRD-5500 Configuration). CQ-1006, pp. 5, 94, 99.
`
`Consequently, this petition demonstrates that claims 1-39 merely recite
`
`features that were well known in the prior art and are therefore rendered obvious
`
`over the references presented in this petition.
`
`B.
`
`The ‘147 Patent
`1.
`Overview
`
`The ‘147 Patent has seven independent claims (claims 1, 6, 10, 14, 21, 28, and
`
`34) and a total of 39 claims. The ‘147 Patent generally describes a “storage router”
`
`4
`
`
`
`that routes storage requests between workstations and storage devices. CQ1001,
`
`Abstract. Figure 3 of the ‘147 Patent illustrates one embodiment of the storage
`
`network in which the storage router operates:
`
`
`
`As shown in Fig. 3, workstations on a Fiber Channel link (i.e., a transport
`
`medium) are connected to one side of the storage router (the “host side”), and
`
`storage devices on the SCSI bus communication link are connected to the other side
`
`of the storage router (the “disk side”). CQ- 1001, 4:10-19. The ‘147 Patent
`
`describes the storage router as “a bridge device that connects a Fiber Channel link
`
`directly to a SCSI bus.” Id. at 5:46-50. The ‘147 Patent notes, however, that the
`
`“storage router has various modes of operation,” including a mode in which the
`
`storage router routes data between a Fibre Channel-attached host and a Fibre
`
`Channel-attached storage device. Id. at 6:31-43.
`
`According to the ‘147 Patent, a “SCSI command” is an example of a native low
`
`level block protocol command and the storage router enables the exchange of SCSI
`
`commands and data between the workstations and the storage devices. Id. at
`
`5
`
`
`
`5:61-63; 4:15-19. Additionally, the ‘147 Patent states that Fiber Channel-based
`
`workstations on one side of the storage router may communicate with SCSI-based
`
`storage devices on the other side of the storage router by encapsulating SCSI
`
`commands into Fiber Channel Protocol (FCP) requests. Id. at 6:44-56. As
`
`discussed below in more detail, encapsulating SCSI commands inside a Fibre Channel
`
`request was a feature of the Fibre Channel standard, and was well known in the art at
`
`the time of the ‘147 invention. See CQ-1006, pp. 94-95.
`
`The ‘147 Patent states that the storage router uses “mapping tables” to allocate
`
`subsets of storage space (e.g., partitions) on the storage devices to particular
`
`workstations. CQ-1001, 4:26-35. For example, referring to Fig. 3, “[s]torage device
`
`62 can be configured to provide partitioned subsets 66, 68, 70 and 72, where each
`
`partition is allocated to one of the workstations 58.” Id. at 4:32- 35. Also, the ‘147
`
`Patent states that the storage router provides “virtual local storage” such that a
`
`mapped partition is “considered by the workstation 58 to be its local storage”—i.e.,
`
`the mapped partition “has the appearance and characteristics of local storage.” Id. at
`
`4:20-26, 4:56-66. As discussed below in more detail, it was well known in the art at
`
`the time of the ‘147 invention to map workstations on one side of a storage router to
`
`partitions on the other side of the storage router, and to make the partitions appear as
`
`local disks. See CQ-1004, pp. 1-2, 3-6, 4-5.
`
`According to the ‘147 Patent, the storage router uses the mapping functionality to
`
`facilitate both routing and access control. CQ- 1001, 5:37-39. With respect to
`
`6
`
`
`
`routing, the ‘147 Patent states that the map between the initiators and the specific
`
`subsets of storage allows the storage router to determine “what partition is being
`
`addressed by a particular request,” thus enabling it to “distribute[] requests and data” to
`
`storage devices Id. at 9:11-14, 4:2-5. For access control, the ‘147 Patent states that the
`
`storage router prevents a workstation from accessing a subset of storage not allocated
`
`to it in the map. Id. at 9:5-17. For example, in Fig. 3, “subsets 66, 68, 70 and 72 can
`
`only be accessed by the associated workstation 58.” Id. at 4:35-37. As discussed
`
`below in more detail, the concept of using a map to facilitate routing and access control
`
`of storage devices was well known in the art at the time of the ‘147 Patent invention.
`
`See CQ-1004, pp. 1-2, 4-5.
`
`To illustrate the general flow of I/O commands in the storage network of the
`
`‘147 Patent, Fig. 3 is further annotated below:
`
`Because communicating SCSI commands over Fibre Channel, mapping
`
`workstations to storage partitions, and using the mapping for routing and access
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`control were well known in the art at the time of the ‘147 invention, the storage
`
`network described by the ‘147 Patent is simply a collection of components that were
`
`well known in the art at the time of the ‘147 Patent invention. CQ-1003, ¶ 21.
`
`And, as shown below, these well-known components are arranged in a manner that
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
`
`2.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ‘147 Patent issued on May 23, 2006, from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`10/658,163 (“the ’163 application”) filed on September 9, 2003 by Geoffrey B. Hoese
`
`and Jeffry T. Russell. The ‘147 Patent is purportedly a continuation of a string of
`
`patent applications claiming priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 09/001,799, filed
`
`on Dec. 31, 1997. During prosecution, the ’163 application was rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and was also subject to a double patenting rejection.
`
`CQ-1002, pp. 205-213. Patent Owner overcame the § 112 rejection without
`
`amending the claims and filed a Terminal Disclaimer disclaiming any patent term
`
`extending beyond the life of 7 U.S. Patents and 7 pending-at-thetime U.S. Patent
`
`Applications. Id. at 325-343, 37 1-372. The Examiner then issued a Notice of
`
`Allowance without a substantive rejection of the claims. Id. at 404-407. Based on
`
`the above, it appears that during the course of the prosecution of the ‘147 Patent, the
`
`Patent Office never substantively considered the relevance of the CRD Manual or the
`
`HP Journal.
`
`8
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Challenges
`1.
`Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1-39 of the ‘147 Patent are challenged in this petition.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`2.
`Claims 1-39 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the CRD-5500 SCSI Raid
`
`Controller User's Manual (“CRD Manual”) in view of Volume 47, issue 5 of the
`
`Hewlett-Packard Journal (“HP Journal”). The CRD Manual is dated November 21,
`
`1996 and was available for public download from the CMD Technologies website at
`
`least by December 26, 19961, and is thus prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The HP
`
`Journal was published in October 1996, and the HP Journal Online website notes that
`
`the “HP Journal has been available on the World Wide Web since early 1994.” See
`
`CQ-1012. The HP Journal is thus prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`3.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`This petition presents claim analysis in a manner that is consistent with the
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`1 The CRD Manual was archived on December 26, 1996 by the Internet Archive
`Wayback Machine and is available at http://web.archive.org/web/19961226085
`953/http ://www. cmd. com/ftproot/pub/raid/5500/manual/crd5 500user.pdf.
`The PTO identifies the Wayback Machine “archived date” as the publication date of
`web-based documents. See,
`http://uspto.gov/patents/resources/methods/aiplafall02paper.jsp.
`
`9
`
`
`
`42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and accustomed meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Also, because the claim constructions proposed herein are
`
`based on the broadest reasonable construction, they do not necessarily apply to other
`
`proceedings that use different claim construction standards. See Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd v. Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc., IPR20 13- 00569, Paper 9 at *2, Oct. 30,
`
`2013 (“[B]ecause the Board applies the broadest reasonable construction standard, the
`
`Board’s construction may not be the same as that adopted by a district court, which
`
`may apply a different standard.”).
`
`i.
`
`“maps between the device and the remote storage devices”
`
`This claim term is found in claim 1. Independent claims 6, 10, 14, 21, 28, and
`
`34 recite similar language. In the previous Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3PAR litigation2
`
`(in connection with related U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035), the District Court construed
`
`“map / mapping” to mean “to create a path from a device on one side of the storage
`
`router to a device on the other side of the router. A ‘map’ contains a representation
`
`of devices on each side of the storage router, so that when a device on one side of the
`
`storage router wants to communicate with a device on
`
`2 Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3PAR, Inc., et. al., no. 1-10-cv-00652 (W.D. Tex. 2010).
`
`10
`
`
`
`the other side of the storage router, the storage router can connect the devices.”
`
`CQ-1009, p. 12.
`
`The ‘147 Patent does not provide an explicit definition of the above term, but
`
`describes that in Fig. 3 “[s]torage router 56 allows the configuration and modification
`
`of the storage allocated to each attached workstation 58 through the use of mapping
`
`tables or other mapping techniques.” CQ-1001, 4:26-29 (emphasis added). The ‘147
`
`Patent also describes that the storage router uses “tables to map, for each initiator,
`
`what storage access is available and what partition is being addressed by a particular
`
`request.” Id. at 9:11-14. Dependent claims 2 and 7 appear to clarify the mapping in
`
`the independent claims. For example, claim 2 recites: “wherein the configuration
`
`maintained by the supervisor unit includes an allocation of subsets of storage space to
`
`associated Fibre Channel devices, wherein each subset is only accessible by the
`
`associated Fibre Channel device.” Id. at 9:48-52. Thus, consistent with the
`
`surrounding language of the claims and the specification, one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand the broadest reasonable construction of “maps between the
`
`device and the remote storage devices” to be “to allocate storage on the storage devices to
`
`devices to facilitate routing and access controls.” See CQ-1001, 4:26-38, 9:5-17; see also
`
`CQ-1003 at ¶¶ 27-31.
`
`Whether the District Court construction or the foregoing construction is
`
`applied, the prior art references relied upon in this petition teach this claim term. See
`
`CQ-1003, pp. 54-55, 90, 102-103, 117-118, 139-140, 162, 177-178, 207-208.
`
`11
`
`
`
`“native low level block protocol”
`ii.
`This claim term is found in claims 1, 6, 10, 14, 21, 28, and 34. In the 3Par
`
`litigation (in connection with related U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035), the District Court
`
`construed this term to mean “a set of rules or standards that enable computers to
`
`exchange information and do not involve the overhead of high level protocols and file
`
`systems typically required by network servers.” CQ-1009, p. 13.
`
`The ‘147 Patent does not provide an explicit definition of “native low level
`
`block protocol,” but contrasts a workstation accessing “a local storage device” using
`
`“native low level, block protocols” with a workstation accessing network-based
`
`storage devices through a “network server” which “implements a file system and
`
`transfers data to workstations 12 only through high level file system protocols.”
`
`CQ-1001, 3:27-36. With reference to Fig. 3, the ‘147 Patent states that subsets 66,
`
`68, 70, and 72 of storage space are “accessed using native low level, block protocols”
`
`and that “storage access involves native low level, block protocols.” Id. at 4:35-38,
`
`5:13-17. One example in the ‘147 Patent of a native low level block protocol
`
`command is a “SCSI command.” Id. at 5:46-50. Thus, based upon the plain
`
`language of the claims and consistent with the specification, one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would understand the broadest reasonable construction of “native low level
`
`block protocol” to be “a protocol in which storage space is accessed at the block level, such as the
`
`SCSIprotocol.” CQ-1003 at JJ 32-36.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Whether the District Court construction or the foregoing construction is
`
`applied, the prior art references relied upon in this petition teach this claim term.
`
`See CQ-1003, pp. 58, 93-94, 120, 185.
`
`“remote”
`iii.
`This term is found in claims 1, 4, 10, 13-15, 17-19, 21, 28, and 34. In the
`
`3Par litigation (in connection with related U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035), the District
`
`Court construed “remote” to mean “indirectly connected through at least one serial
`
`network transport medium.” CQ-1009, p. 12.
`
`The ‘147 Patent does not provide an explicit definition of “remote,” but
`
`describes that “the storage space considered by the workstation 58 to be its local
`
`storage is actually a partition (i.e., logical storage definition) of a physically remote
`
`storage device 60, 62 or 64 connected through storage router 56.” CQ-1001, 4:63- 66
`
`(emphasis added). The ‘147 Patent also describes that “[t]ypical storage transport
`
`mediums provide for a relatively small number of devices to be attached over
`
`relatively short distances. One such transport medium is a Small Computer System
`
`Interface (SCSI) protocol.” Id. at 1:30-35. Thus, consistent with the surrounding
`
`language of the claims and the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the broadest reasonable construction of “remote” to be “indirectly connected
`
`through a storage router to enable connections to storage devices at a distance greater than allowed by a
`
`conventional parallel network interconnect.” CQ-1003 at JJ 37-41.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Whether the District Court construction or the foregoing construction is
`
`applied, the prior art references relied upon in this petition teach this claim term.
`
`See CQ-1003, pp. 40-41, 106-107, 125-126, 153-154, 173.
`
`4.
`i.
`
`Identification of How the Claims Are Unpatentable
`Challenge: Claims 1-14, 16-33, 35-50 and 53 are obvious over
`the CRD Manual in view of the HP Journal
`(a) Summary of the CRD Manual
`The CRD Manual describes the features and operation of the CRD-5500 SCSI
`
`RAID Controller. The CRD-5500 Controller routes commands and data between
`
`hosts (i.e., initiators) and storage devices (i.e., targets) coupled to the controller.
`
`CQ-1004, pp. 1-1, 1-4.
`
`Hosts attached to SCSI bus links are connected to the CRD-5500 Controller
`
`(the “host side”) and storage devices attached to SCSI bus links are connected to the
`
`CRD-5500 Controller (the “disk side”). Id. at p. 2-4. The CRD-5500 Controller
`
`enables the exchange of SCSI commands and data between the hosts and the storage
`
`devices. Id. at pp. 1-1, 1-4, 2-1, 2-4. Figure 1-2 in the CRD Manual illustrates the
`
`storage network in which the CRD-5500 Controller operates:
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`The CRD -5500 Controller includes a Monitor Utility in its user-upgradeable
`
`firmware that gives a user “complete control over the configuration and operation of
`
`the controller.” CQ-1004, pp. 4-1, 4-14. The Monitor Utility includes a “Host LUN
`
`Mapping” feature that allows a user to map subsets of storage space on the storage
`
`devices (referred to as “redundancy groups”) to specific hosts. Id. at pp. 1- 2, 1-11,
`
`4-2, 4-5. A “LUN” is a logical unit number used to represent storage space.
`
`CQ-1003, ¶ 44. Specifically, as shown below, the Host LUN Mapping feature
`
`maintains a mapping table for each host, where each mapping table has a set of
`
`virtual LUNs (numbered 0-31) to which the redundancy groups are mapped.
`
`CQ-1004, pp. 1-2, 1-11, 4-2, 4-5. A host accesses the redundancy groups by
`
`referencing its virtual LUNs. Id. For example, in the below Host LUN Mapping
`
`configuration, the host associated with channel 0 may access redundancy group 5 by
`
`addressing SCSI commands to LUN 4. CQ-1003, ¶¶ 44-45:
`
`15
`
`
`
`As an aspect of this, each mapped redundancy group “will appear to the host as a
`
`different disk drive.” CQ-1004, p. 3-6.
`
`The CRD -5500 Controller uses the Host LUN Mapping tables to facilitate
`
`routing and access control. Figure 1-2 illustrates the general flow for routing
`
`commands from a host to a redundancy group:
`
`
`
`
`
`Additionally, because a host transmits SCSI commands to its set of virtual
`
`LUNs rather than the physical storage devices, the CRD-5500 Controller can “make
`
`a redundancy group visible to one host but not to another.” CQ-1004, p. 1-1.
`
`For example, the CRD-5500 Controller “may make redundancy group 8 available on
`
`16
`
`
`
`LUN 4 on host channel 0 and block access to it on host channel 1.” Id. at p. 4-5.
`
`Thus, the CRD -5500 not only routes commands, but can control access.
`
`Further, the CRD-5500 Controller includes numerous slots for I/O adapter
`
`cards through which the controller communicates with hosts and storage devices.
`
`CQ-1004, pp. 1-1, 2-1, 2-4. A key feature of the CRD-5500 Controller is that it
`
`“employs a modular design for maximum flexibility.” Id. at p. 1-1. Specifically, the
`
`controller’s slots accept different types of I/O adapter cards. Id. at pp. 1-1, 2-1, 2-4.
`
`Figure 2-1 illustrates the modular nature of the controller:
`
`
`
`Notably, the designers of the CRD-5500 Controller intended for the CRD-
`
`5500 to work not only with SCSI bus links but also with other types of
`
`communication links. A data sheet advertising the features of the CRD-5500
`
`Controller states that the controller’s “RAID architecture and ASICs were
`
`designed to support tomorrow's high speed serial interfaces, such as
`
`Fiberchannel (FCAL) and Serial Storage Architecture (SSA).” CQ-1005, p. 1
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`(b)
`
`Summary of the HP Journal
`
`17
`
`
`
`Volume 47, issue 5 of the Hewlett-Packard Journal includes a number of
`
`articles that address the growing problem in 1997 of “I/O channels becom[ing]
`
`bottlenecks to system performance.” CQ-1006, p. 5. Specifically, one article in the
`
`issue provides an introduction to the Fibre Channel I/O interface and describes it as
`
`“a flexible, scalable, high-speed data transfer interface that can operate over a variety
`
`of both copper wire and optical fiber at data rates up to 250 times faster than existing
`
`communications interfaces.” Id. at p. 94. The article provides many reasons a
`
`Fibre Channel communication link is superior to a SCSI bus (e.g., longer distances and
`
`higher bandwidth, smaller connectors). Id. at p. 94. It also notes that SCSI
`
`commands may be “encapsulated and transported within Fibre Channel frames” to
`
`support existing storage hardware. Id. at pp. 94-95.
`
`A second article in the same issue of the HP Journal describes a Fibre
`
`Channel protocol chip made by HP called “Tachyon.” CQ-1006, pp. 99-112.
`
`The article states that the Tachyon chip implements the Fibre Channel standard and
`
`“enables low-cost gigabit host adapters on industry-standard buses.” Id. at p. 101.
`
`The article also provides details about how to implement a Fibre Channel I/O
`
`adapter card that uses the Tachyon chip. Id. at p. 111.
`
`(c)
`
`Reasons to Combine the CRD Manual and the HP Journal
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
`
`teachings of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal to replace the SCSI I/O host
`
`18
`
`
`
`modules in the CRD -5500 Controller with a Fibre Channel I/O host module. See
`
`CQ-1003 at ¶¶ 53-62.
`
`First, the CRD Manual teaches that the modular design of CRD-5500
`
`Controller accepts different types of modules to interface with different transport
`
`media. CQ-1004, pp. 1-1, 2-1. Persons of ordinary skill in the art were informed
`
`that the CRD-5500 Controller was specifically “designed to support tomorrow's high
`
`speed serial interfaces, such as Fiberchannel.” CQ-1005, p. 1.
`
`Second, the HP Journal teaches that “today’s parallel bus architectures are
`
`reaching their limits.” CQ-1006, p. 5. More specifically, the HP Journal teaches
`
`that there are a number of inherent limitations in the SCSI bus architecture that
`
`prevent it from “keeping pace with ever-increasing processor speeds and data rate
`
`requirements.” Id. at p. 99. The HP Journal further teaches that the Fibre
`
`Channel serial transport medium solves these limitations because its “increased
`
`bandwidth provides distance flexibility, increased addressability, and simplified
`
`cabling.” Id. at 99. In particular, it teaches that Fibre Channel “can operate from
`
`2.5 to 250 times faster than existing communications interfaces” and that “[a] single
`
`100- Mbyte/s Fibre Channel port can replace five 20-Mbyte/s SCSI ports, in terms
`
`of raw through put.” Id. at p. 94 (emphasis added). Also, “Fibre Channel resolves
`
`the ‘slots and watts’ problem” because Fibre Channel supports the same I/O services
`
`with fewer number of slots. Id. at 100, 101. Further, the HP Journal notes that
`
`Fibre Channel is backwards compatible with SCSI-based hardware because SCSI
`
`19
`
`
`
`commands may be “encapsulated and transported within Fibre Channel frames.” Id.
`
`at pp. 94-95; CQ-1003, ¶ 56. The HP Journal also describes how to implement a
`
`generic Fibre Channel I/O adapter board using the Tachyon chip. CQ-1006, pp.
`
`101-111; Fig. 14. Notably, the Tachyon chip was designed to be “easily adaptable”
`
`to a variety of system types. Id. at p. 101; CQ-1003, ¶ 57.
`
`Given the teachings of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal, one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been motivated to replace the SCSI I/O modules on both
`
`the “host side” and “disk side” of the CRD-5500 Controller with Fibre Channel I/O
`
`modules. CQ-1003, ¶ 58. Such a substitution would have been simple because (i)
`
`the CRD-5500 Controller has a modular design that accepts different types of I/O
`
`modules and (ii) the Tachyon Fibre Channel chip is “easily adaptable” to different
`
`systems. Id. Further, the HP Journal specifically teaches that a Fibre Channel I/O
`
`module was intended to “replace” SCSI I/O modules. Using Fibre Channel-based
`
`I/O modules instead of SCSI-based I/O modules on both the “host side” and “disk
`
`side” of the CRD-5500 Controller would have allowed the CRD-5500 to
`
`communicate with hosts and disks via Fibre Channel links rather than via SCSI buses,
`
`thereby overcoming many of the known limitations of SCSI buses described in the
`
`HP Journal. Id.
`
`Additionally, the beneficial result of modifying the CRD-5500 Controller to
`
`interface with a Fibre Channel link would have been predictable because (i) the
`
`CRD-5500 Controller was specifically designed to support Fibre Channel, (ii) the HP
`
`20
`
`
`
`Journal specifically contemplates replacing multiple SCSI ports with a single Fibre
`
`Channel port, and (iii) Fibre Channel frames are intended to encapsulate SCSI
`
`commands to create backwards compatibility with SCSI-based devices. CQ1006, pp.
`
`94-95; CQ-1003, ¶¶ 59, 60.
`
`To the extent any modifications would have been needed to the teachings of the
`
`CRD Manual in order to accommodate the teachings of the HP Journal, such
`
`modifications would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art of network
`
`storage. CQ-1003, ¶ 61. For example, because the CRD-5500 Controller was
`
`intended to be used with Fibre Channel, it already included high-performance
`
`hardware components capable of supporting high rates of data movement.
`
`CQ-1005, p. 2; CQ-1004, p. 1-3; CQ-1003, ¶ 61. And, because the firmware in the
`
`CRD-5500 Controller is user upgradeable, one of ordinary skill in the art could have
`
`easily made any necessary software modifications to accommodate Fibre
`
`Channel-based devices. CQ-1004, p. 4-14; CQ-1003, ¶¶ 46, 61. Accordingly, 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.
`
`The Board has repeatedly recognized that “it is often necessary and within
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of two references in order
`
`to combine them.” Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00132, Paper 9 at *26 (July 25, 2013) (citing to In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
`
`21
`
`
`
`1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be
`
`physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”)); see also Liberty
`
`Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., CBM2013-00009, Paper 68 at
`
`*28 (Feb. 11, 2014) (“It is not necessary that the particular structures of the references
`
`be physically combinable, unchanged, to render obvious the claimed invention.”).
`
`Thus, the CRD-5500 Controller’s ability to accept different I/O modules and
`
`compatibility with high speed serial interfaces such as Fibre C
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
