Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9
`571-272-7822 Entered: January 30, 2015
`
`
`
`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 IPR2014-01226
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`____________
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, NEIL T. POWELL, and KRISTINA M. KALAN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 2104
`NetApp Inc. v. Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`IPR2015-00777
`
`CROSSROADS EXHIBIT
`Oracle Corp. v. Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`IPR2015-008(cid:1009)(cid:1006)
`
`2104
`
`
`571-272-7822 Entered: January 30, 2015
`
`
`
`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 IPR2014-01226
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`____________
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, NEIL T. POWELL, and KRISTINA M. KALAN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 2104
`NetApp Inc. v. Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`IPR2015-00777
`
`CROSSROADS EXHIBIT
`Oracle Corp. v. Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`IPR2015-008(cid:1009)(cid:1006)
`
`2104
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01226
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. and Quantum Corporation (“Petitioners”) filed a
`
`Petition (Paper 3, “Pet.”), requesting institution of an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’035 patent”).
`
`Patent Owner Crossroads Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`We institute inter partes review because we determine that the
`
`information presented in the Petition and in the Preliminary Response shows
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a). In particular, we institute inter partes review with respect
`
`to claims 1–14.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. The ’035 Patent
`
`The ’035 patent relates to a storage router and method for providing
`
`virtual local storage on remote Small Computer System Interface (“SCSI”)
`
`storage devices to Fiber Channel (“FC”) devices. Ex. 1001, 1:16–19.
`
`Typical storage transport media, such as SCSI, provide for a “relatively
`
`small number of devices to be attached over relatively short distances.” Id.
`
`at 1:23–26. High speed serial interconnects, such as FC, provide “capability
`
`to attach a large number of high speed devices to a common storage
`
`transport medium over large distances.” Id. at 1:29–32. According to the
`
`’035 patent, conventional computing devices, such as workstations, can
`
`access local storage through native low level, block protocols and can access
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01226
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`storage on a remote network server through network interconnects. Id. at
`
`1:37–49. To access the storage on the remote network server, the
`
`workstation must translate its file system protocols into network protocols,
`
`and the remote network server must translate network protocols to low level
`
`requests. Id. at 1:51–57. Thus, computing devices, such as workstations,
`
`have slower access to storage on the remote network server than access to
`
`data on a local storage drive. Id. at 1:57–60.
`
`A storage router can interconnect the SCSI storage transport medium
`
`and the FC high speed serial interconnect to provide devices on either
`
`medium with access to devices on the other medium such that no network
`
`server is involved. Id. at 3:30–40. Figure 4 of the ’035 patent is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`
`
`Figure 4 is a block diagram of an embodiment of a storage router. Id.
`
`at 2:59–60, 5:6–7. Storage router 56 can comprise FC controller 80 that
`
`interfaces with FC 52 and SCSI controller 82 that interfaces with SCSI
`
`bus 54. Buffer 84 connects to FC controller 80 and SCSI controller 82 and
`
`provides memory work space. Id. at 5:7–9. Supervisor unit 86 connects to
`
`FC controller 80, SCSI controller 82, and buffer 84. Id. at 5:10–12.
`
`Supervisor unit 86 controls operation of storage router 56 and handles
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01226
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`mapping and security access for requests between FC 52 and SCSI bus 54.
`
`Id. at 5:12–17.
`
`Claims 1, 7, and 11 are the independent claims challenged by this
`
`petition, and claim 1 is reproduced below:
`
`1. A storage router for providing virtual local storage on
`remote storage devices to devices, comprising:
`
`a buffer providing memory work space for the storage
`router;
`
`a first controller operable to connect to and interface with
`a first transport medium;
`
`a second controller operable to connect to and interface
`with a second transport medium; and
`
`a supervisor unit coupled to the first controller, the
`second controller and the buffer, the supervisor unit operable to
`map between devices connected to the first transport medium
`and the storage devices, to implement access controls for
`storage space on the storage devices and to process data in the
`buffer to interface between the first controller and the second
`controller to allow access from devices connected to the first
`transport medium to the storage devices using native low level,
`block protocols.
`
`Id. at 9:13–31.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`The ’035 patent is the subject of multiple district court proceedings.
`
`Pet. 1–2; Paper 6, 2–3.
`
`The ’035 patent is also involved in Case IPR2014-01197 and belongs
`
`to a family of patents that are the subject of multiple inter partes review
`
`petitions including IPR2014-01177, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209,
`
`IPR2014-01233, and IPR2014-01463.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01226
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`
`C. Challenges
`
`Petitioners challenge the claims as follows, all on the basis of
`
`obviousness:
`
`References
`
`CRD-5500 User Manual1
`and HP Journal2
`CRD-5500 User Manual, HP
`Journal, and QLogic Data
`Sheet3
`
`
`
`D. Claim Construction
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`1–5 and 7–14
`
`6
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary 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).
`
`Petitioners propose a construction for “to map between devices
`
`connected to the first transport medium and the storage devices,” as recited
`
`
`1 CMD Technology, Inc., CRD-5500 SCSI RAID Controller User’s Manual,
`(1996) (Ex. 1004).
`2 Petitioners cite two articles in Exhibit 1006 as one reference: Meryem
`Primmer, An Introduction to Fibre Channel, 47 Hewlett-Packard J., 94–98
`(1996) and Judith A. Smith and Meryem Primmer, Tachyon: A Gigabit
`Fibre Channel Protocol Chip, 47 Hewlett-Packard J., 99–112 (1996).
`3 QLogic Corp., FAS216/216U/236/236U Fast Architecture SCSI Processor
`(1996) (Ex. 1007).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01226
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`by claim 1; “to map between the workstations and the storage devices,” as
`
`recited by claim 7; and “mapping between devices connected to the first
`
`transport medium and the storage devices,” as recited by claim 11. Pet. 12.
`
`Petitioners argue that the “specification does not provide an explicit
`
`definition of these related terms,” and thus, provide citations to descriptions
`
`found in the specification. Id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:13–25, 8:61–
`
`9:6). Petitioners also argue that claims 2, 8, and 12 “appear to clarify the
`
`mapping language recited in the independent claims.” Id. at 13. Patent
`
`Owner does not challenge Petitioners’ proposed construction or propose an
`
`alternate construction. For the purposes of this Decision, after reviewing
`
`Petitioners’ citations to the Specification and the dependent claims, we are
`
`persuaded by Petitioner’s position that “one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the broadest reasonable construction of the above limitations to
`
`be ‘to allocate storage on the storage devices to devices on the first
`
`transport medium to facilitate routing and access controls.’” Id. at 14
`
`(citing Ex. 1001 4:13–25, 8:61–9:6; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–32).
`
`Petitioners propose construing “native low-level block protocol” as
`
`recited by claims 1, 7, and 11 to mean “a protocol in which storage space is
`
`accessed at the block level, such as the SCSI protocol,” with support from
`
`descriptions in the Specification and Figure 3. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1001
`
`3:14–22, 4:19–25, 5:1–5, 5:34–38, 6:32–44, Fig. 3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–37).
`
`Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioners’ proposed construction or
`
`propose an alternate construction. For the purposes of this Decision, after
`
`reviewing Petitioners’ citations to the Specification, we are persuaded that
`
`“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
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01226
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`storage space is accessed at the block level, such as the SCSI protocol.’”
`
`Id. at 15.
`
`Petitioners propose construing “remote,” as recited by claims 1 and
`
`11, to mean “indirectly connected through a storage router to enable
`
`connections to storage devices at a distance greater than allowed by a
`
`conventional parallel network interconnect,” with support from descriptions
`
`in the Specification and Figure 3. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1001 1:23–31, 2:27–
`
`33, 4:48–54, Fig. 3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–42). Patent Owner does not challenge
`
`Petitioners’ proposed construction or propose an alternate construction. For
`
`the purposes of this Decision, after reviewing Petitioners’ citations to the
`
`Specification, we are persuaded that “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.’” Id. at 16.
`
`
`
`E. Obviousness of Claims 1–5 and 7–14 over CRD-5500 Manual and
`
`HP Journal
`
`
`
`Petitioners argue that the CRD-5500 Manual discloses a storage router
`
`having all the limitations of claim 1 except for “a first controller operable to
`
`connect to and interface with a first transport medium.” Pet. 26–33 (citing
`
`Ex. 1004, 1–1, 1–2, 1–4, 1–11, 2–1, 2–4, 3–1, 3–6, 4–1, 4–2, 4–5, 4–14, 4–
`
`18, Fig. 1–2). Petitioners rely on the HP Journal to disclose an FC host bus
`
`adapter board with a Tachyon chip that can interface with an FC serial
`
`transport medium. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1004, 1–1, 2–1, 2–4, 3–1; Ex. 1006,
`
`101, 111, Fig. 14).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01226
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioners assert that, because the CRD-5500 Manual teaches that the
`
`CRD-5500 RAID controller has a modular design, and the HP Journal
`
`teaches the advantages of FC versus SCSI, the backward compatibility of FC
`
`with SCSI-based hardware, and how to implement an FC adapter board
`
`using a Tachyon chip, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to replace the SCSI I/O host modules in the CRD-5500 RAID
`
`Controller with an FC host module based on the Tachyon chip. Pet. 22–23
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–62; Ex. 1004, 1–1, 2–1; Ex. 1006, 5, 94–95, 99–111);
`
`id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 63, pp. 42–48). Petitioners further argue that the
`
`“substitution would have been simple because (i) the CRD-5500 RAID
`
`controller has a modular design . . . (ii) the Tachyon Fibre Channel chip is
`
`‘easily adaptable’ to different systems” and the HP Journal teaches that an
`
`FC host module was intended to replace SCSI host modules. Id. at 23–24
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 59). Petitioners also assert the benefit of modifying the
`
`CRD-5500 RAID controller to interface with an FC medium would have
`
`been predictable and such a modification would have been within the level
`
`of ordinary skill. Id. at 24–25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–62; Ex. 1005, 2).
`
`
`
`Petitioners also argue that the CRD-5500 Manual discloses the subject
`
`matter of claims 2–4 that depend from claim 1. Pet. 34–36 (citing Ex. 1004,
`
`1–1, 1–2, 1–4, 1–11, 2–4, 3–1, 4–2, 4–5). For claim 5 that depends from
`
`claim 1, Petitioners rely on their arguments for claim 1 that the CRD-5500
`
`Manual and HP Journal teach the first controller and assert that the HP
`
`Journal discloses “a first protocol unit operable to connect to the first
`
`transport medium,” “a first-in-first-out queue coupled to the first protocol
`
`unit,” and “a direct memory access (DMA) interface coupled to the first-in-
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01226
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`first-out queue and to the buffer.” Pet. 36–38 (citing Ex. 1006, 106, Figs. 5,
`
`6).
`
`
`
`Petitioners argue that the CRD-5500 Manual discloses a storage
`
`network having all the limitations of independent claim 7 except for “a
`
`plurality of workstations connected to the first transport medium.” Pet. 38–
`
`44. Petitioners argue that the CRD-5500 Manual teaches four hosts can be
`
`connected to the CRD-5500 and rely on the HP Journal to teach that FC
`
`standard supports 2–126 devices. Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1004, 1–2, 1–4, 2–4,
`
`Fig. 1–2; Ex. 1006, 95). Petitioners further argue that the skilled artisan
`
`would have been motivated to move hosts connected via SCSI buses to a
`
`single FC communication link to save I/O slots in the CRD-5500 and
`
`minimize cabling infrastructure. Id. at 40–41 (citing Ex. 1006, 94, 100,
`
`101).
`
`
`
`Petitioners also argue that the CRD-5500 Manual discloses the
`
`limitations of claims 8 and 9 that depend from claim 7. Id. at 44–45. For
`
`claim 10 that depends from claim 7, Petitioners argue that the CRD-5500
`
`Manual discloses all the limitations except “a first controller operable to
`
`connect to and interface with the first transport medium, the first controller
`
`further operable to pull outgoing data from the buffer and to place incoming
`
`data into the buffer.” Id. at 45–48. Petitioners argue that the CRD-5500
`
`Manual teaches that the CRD-5500 controller has slots for replaceable
`
`controllers and temporarily stores data in an onboard cache and that the HP
`
`Journal teaches an adapter using a Tachyon chip for interfacing with an FC
`
`serial transport medium. Id. at 46–47 (citing Ex. 1004, 1–1, 1–4, 2–1, 2–4,
`
`3–1; Ex. 1006, 101, 111, Fig. 14). Petitioners, thus, argue that the skilled
`
`artisan “would have been motivated to replace the SCSI I/O host modules in
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01226
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`the CRD-5500 RAID Controller with a Fibre Channel I/O host module (first
`
`controller),” thereby rendering obvious “a first controller operable to
`
`connect to and interface with the first transport medium, the first controller
`
`further operable to pull outgoing data from the buffer and to place incoming
`
`data into the buffer.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 94–96).
`
`
`
`Petitioners assert that the CRD-5500 Manual discloses a method for
`
`providing virtual local storage on remote storage devices having all the
`
`limitations of independent claim 11, except for “interfacing with a first
`
`transport medium.” Pet. 48–52. Petitioners argue that the CRD-5500
`
`Manual teaches that the CRD-5500 controller interfaces with SCSI buses,
`
`one of which may be a host bus, via removable modules. Id. at 50 (citing
`
`Ex. 1004, 1–1, 2–1, 2–4, 3–1). Petitioners also argue that the HP Journal
`
`teaches an adapter using a Tachyon chip for interfacing with an FC serial
`
`transport medium. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 101, 111, Fig. 14). Petitioners thus
`
`assert that, because the CRD-5500 manual teaches a controller of modular
`
`design with built-in support for FC and the advantages of FC versus SCSI,
`
`“one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace the
`
`SCSI I/O host modules in the CRD-5500 RAID Controller with a Fibre
`
`Channel I/O host module.” Id. at 50. Petitioners further argue that the
`
`CRD-5500 Manual discloses all the limitation of claims 12–14 that depend
`
`from claim 11. Id. at 52–54.
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ arguments regarding the limitations of claims 1–5 and 7–
`
`14 and that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of CRD-
`
`5500 Manual and HP Journal are reasonable and supported by record
`
`evidence.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01226
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner responds that the CRD-5500 Manual and the
`
`information in the HP Journal has been considered by the Office in a
`
`reexamination of the ’035 patent. Prelim. Resp. 10–12, 13–19 (citing Ex.
`
`1010, 310, 337–338, 345). Patent Owner argues that the HP Journal
`
`contains Smith, which “was not explicitly before the Office” but “is about
`
`the Tachyon chip.” Id. at 11 n.3. Patent Owner notes that the User’s
`
`Manual for the Tachyon Chip was cited. Id. (citing Ex. 2016). The
`
`arguments are not persuasive because the information in the HP Journal and
`
`Smith was not explicitly before the Office and Petitioners’ arguments
`
`regarding these references were not previously considered.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that “Petitioners’ alleged motivation to
`
`modify the teachings of the CRD-5500 Manual was also before the Patent
`
`Office” because the Petition cites Exhibit 1005, which was submitted during
`
`the reexamination of the ’035 patent. Prelim. Resp. 12–13 (citing Pet. 22,
`
`Ex. 1010, 165). However, the argument is unpersuasive because, as
`
`discussed above, we are persuaded by Petitioners’ arguments that do not rely
`
`on Exhibit 1005.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner further argues that “Petitioners are recycling the same
`
`arguments raised” in the reexamination of the ’035 patent because the
`
`MaxStrat GEN 5 RAID controller considered during reexamination and
`
`Petitioners’ CRD-5500 controller have similar functionality. Prelim. Resp.
`
`19–22 (citing Ex. 1010, 288, 316–318; Ex. 2013, 1, 5–6). The argument is
`
`not persuasive because Petitioners assert obviousness, not anticipation,
`
`based on CRD-5500 and HP Journal.
`
`Patent Owner urges the Board to exercise its discretion under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny the challenges presented because substantially the
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01226
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`same petition was presented in IPR2014-01197; the HP Journal contains a
`
`reference cited in IPR2014-01197; the petition in IPR2014-01197 presented
`
`a theoretical combination of a CRD-5500 and a FC module; the same
`
`argument was made for claim 2; substantially the same argument was made
`
`for claim 6; petitioners in both cases share common attorneys; the petition
`
`for IPR2014-01226 presents another “bite at the apple;” and there is no
`
`justification for the second petition. Prelim. Resp. 23–29. We decline to
`
`exercise this discretion, because we did not institute on grounds involving
`
`the CRD-5500 controller in IPR2014-01197 (Paper 13).
`
`Patent Owner argues that “[a]lthough Petitioners have proposed
`
`constructions for a few terms, their obviousness analysis does not actually
`
`utilize these constructions” and thus, Petitioners have not shown how the
`
`construed claims are unpatentable and have not established that they are
`
`entitled to relief. Prelim. Resp. 29, 30–31. In particular, Patent Owner
`
`argues that Petitioners make a conclusory statement that Host LUN Mapping
`
`discloses “the supervisor unit operable to map between devices connected to
`
`the first transport medium and the second transport medium,” as recited by
`
`claim 1, without explaining how the Host LUN Mapping meets Petitioners’
`
`proposed construction of “to map between devices connected to the first
`
`transport medium and the storage devices” to be “to allocate storage on the
`
`storage devices to devices on the first transport medium to facilitate routing
`
`and access controls.” Id. at 29–30 (citing Pet. 14, 31). Patent Owner further
`
`argues that Petitioners’ arguments based on a definition from related
`
`litigation is incomplete and merely an assertion. Id. at 30.
`
`These arguments are not persuasive because Petitioners explain how
`
`the CRD-5500 Manual discloses a Host LUN Mapping feature that assigns
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01226
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`redundancy groups to a particular host and each redundancy group is a
`
`combination of disk drives or partitions of disk drives. Pet. 31 (citing Ex.
`
`1004, 1–2, 1–11, 4–2, 4–5), 42–43 (citing Ex. 1004, 1–2, 1–11, 4–2, 4–5).
`
`Patent Owner also argues that the “Petition fails to engage in the
`
`prerequisite ‘critically important factual inquiry’ of identifying the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, impermissibly
`
`leaving the Board and the Patent Owner to suss out the differences.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 32. Patent Owner asserts that the Petition “introduces the CRD-5500
`
`Manual and HP Journal without comparing them to the claims of the ’035
`
`Patent” and “then argues it would be obvious to combine the CRD-5500
`
`Manual and HP Journal to create a theoretical system.” Id. (citing Pet. 16–
`
`21, 23–26).
`
`The arguments are not persuasive because Petitioners explain how the
`
`CRD-5500 Manual teaches the limitations of the claims. Pet. 26–54, 56–57.
`
`For claims 1, 5, 7, 10, and 11, which contain limitations that are not taught
`
`by the CRD-5500 Manual, Petitioners provide citations to the HP Journal
`
`and argue why the ordinary skilled artisan would have combined the
`
`teachings of the references. Pet. 28–29, 36–40, 45–47, 50–51. Thus, the
`
`Petition compares the references to the claims in a manner sufficient to
`
`identify the differences between the claimed invention and the cited
`
`references.
`
`Patent Owner further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`not combine CRD-5500 Manual and HP Journal “based on the teachings of
`
`‘[a] data sheet advertising the features of the CRD-5500 RAID controller’”
`
`that describes the controller as designed to support fiber channel. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 33–35 (citing Pet. 21). Page 21 of the Petition does cite a data sheet
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01226
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`(Ex. 1005) for teaching that the CRD-5500 RAID controller was “designed
`
`to support tomorrow’s high speed serial interfaces, such as Fiberchannel.”
`
`However, as discussed above, Petitioners rely on the CRD-5500 Manual and
`
`HP Journal, not the CRD-5500 data sheet, to argue that one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because
`
`the references evidence that the asserted combination is a simple substitution
`
`with predictable beneficial results. Pet. 22–26.
`
`
`
`For these reasons, upon consideration of the information provided in
`
`the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioners have
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5 and 7–14 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over CRD-5500
`
`Manual and HP Journal.
`
`
`
`F. Obviousness of Claim 6 over CRD-5500 Manual, HP Journal, and
`
`QLogic Data Sheet
`
`
`
`Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and Petitioners rely on their arguments
`
`for claim 1 that the CRD-5500 Manual teaches the “second controller.”
`
`Pet. 56. Petitioners cite the QLogic Data Sheet for disclosing the additional
`
`limitations of claim 6. Id. at 56–57 (citing Ex. 1007 pp. 1–2).
`
`Petitioners assert that because “the CRD-5500 RAID controller includes at
`
`least one SCSI I/O module that interfaces with a SCSI bus,” “[o]ne of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the [QLogic Data Sheet]
`
`describing the QLogic SCSI Processors to learn more about the components
`
`and functionality of the CRD-5500 RAID controller’s SCSI I/O modules”
`
`and “would have combined the teachings [of] the QLogic Data Sheet with
`
`the teachings of the CRD-5500 Manual.” Pet. 55 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–
`
`68). Petitioners’ arguments regarding the limitations of claim 6 and that it
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01226
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the CRD-5500
`
`Manual, HP Journal, and QLogic Data Sheet are reasonable and supported
`
`by record evidence. Patent Owner does not provide separate arguments for
`
`claim 6 other than those discussed above.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, upon consideration of the information provided in the
`
`Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioners have
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claim 6 is unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over CRD-5500 Manual, HP Journal, and
`
`QLogic Data Sheet.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioners have
`
`demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood of their proving
`
`unpatentability of claims 1–14 of the ’035 patent.
`
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of
`
`the challenged claims.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted as to claims 1–14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035
`
`on the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`A. Claims 1–5 and 7–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness
`
`over CRD-5500 Manual and HP Journal; and
`
`B. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over CRD-
`
`5500 Manual, HP Journal, and QLogic Data Sheet;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01226
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial, the trial
`
`commencing on the entry date of this decision; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`
`identified above, and no other grounds are authorized.
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS:
`
`David L. McCombs
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Scott T. Jarratt
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven R. Sprinkle
`John L. Adair
`SPRINKLE IP LAW GROUP
`crossroadsipr@sprinklelaw.com
`
`Russell Wong
`James Hall
`WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, LLP
`CrossroadsIPR@counselip.com
`
`
`
`16
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
