`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`———————
`
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`———————
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,934,041
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`This Petition Presents the Same Grounds Which Are Presented in
`IPR2014-01463 ................................................................................................. 1
`
`II. Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................... 1
`
`Related Matters ........................................................................................ 1
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ............................... 2
`
`III. Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 2
`
`IV. Relief Requested ............................................................................................... 2
`
`V.
`
`The Reasons for the Requested Relief ............................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`The ‘041 Patent ....................................................................................... 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview ...................................................................................... 3
`
`Prosecution History ..................................................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenges ..................................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Challenged Claims ........................................................................ 7
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ................................................ 7
`
`Claim Construction ...................................................................... 9
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`“native low level block protocol” ....................................... 9
`
`“remote” .......................................................................... 11
`
`4.
`
`Identification of How the Claims Are Unpatentable .................. 12
`
`i.
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1-14, 16-33, 35-50 and 53 are
`obvious over the CRD Manual in view of the HP
`Journal ............................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii.
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 15, 34, 51, 52 are obvious over
`the CRD Manual in view of the HP Journal and in
`further view of the Fibre Channel Standard ..................... 55
`
`VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`This Petition Presents the Same Grounds Which Are Presented in
`IPR2014-01463
`The instant inter partes review petition presents challenges which are identical to
`
`those presented in IPR2014-01463. The petition in the instant case copies verbatim
`
`the challenges set forth in the petition in IPR2014-01463 (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
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2014-01177, filed July 18, 2014; Crossroads
`
`Systems, Inc. v. Quantum Corporation, 1-14-cv-00150, 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. 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 ‘041 patent.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`C.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4), Petitioner provides the following
`
`designation of counsel:
`
`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
`
`Scott McKeown (Backup Counsel)
`Reg. No. 42,866
`Oblon LLP
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`(703) 413-3000
`
`review of the ‘041 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).
`
`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-
`
`53 (all claims) of the ‘041 Patent, and cancel those claims as invalid.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`V. The Reasons for the Requested Relief
`The full statement of the reasons for the relief requested is as follows:
`
`A.
`
`The ‘041 Patent
`1.
`Overview
`The ‘041 Patent has three independent claims (claims 1, 20, and 37) and a total
`
`of 53 claims. The ‘041 Patent generally describes a “storage router” that routes storage
`
`requests between workstations and storage devices. Ex. 1001, Abstract. Figure 3 of
`
`the ‘041 Patent illustrates the architecture 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”). Ex. 1001, 4:25-34. The specification describes the
`
`storage router as “a bridge device that connects a Fiber Channel link directly to a
`
`SCSI bus.” Id. at 5:59-62.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`According to the specification, 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
`
`5:61-63. Additionally, the specification 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 6:43-55. As discussed below in more detail,
`
`encapsulating SCSI commands inside a Fiber Channel request was a feature of the
`
`Fibre Channel standard, and was well known in the art at the time of the ‘041
`
`invention. See Ex. 1006, pp. 94-95.
`
`The specification states that the storage router uses “mapping tables” to
`
`allocate subsets of storage space (e.g., partitions) on the storage devices to particular
`
`workstations. Ex. 1001, 4:39-44. 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 4:47-49. Also, the
`
`specification 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
`
`4:4-14, 4:39-40. As discussed below in more detail, it was well known in the art at the
`
`time of the ‘041 invention to map workstations on one side of a storage router to
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`partitions on the other side of the storage router, and to make the partitions appear as
`
`local disks. See Ex. 1004, pp. 1-2, 3-6, 4-5.
`
`According to the specification, the storage router uses the mapping
`
`functionality to facilitate both routing and access control. Ex. 1001, 5:50-54. For
`
`routing, the specification 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 9:21-27, 4:18-19. For access control, the specification states
`
`that the storage router prevents a workstation from accessing a subset of storage not
`
`allocated to it in the map. Id. at 9:15-27. For example, in Fig. 3, “subsets 66, 68, 70
`
`and 72 can only be accessed by the associated workstation 58.” Id. at 4:50-5 1. 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 ‘041
`
`Patent invention. See Ex. 1004, pp. 1-2, 4-5.
`
`To illustrate the general flow of I/O commands in the storage network of the
`
`‘041 Patent, Fig. 3 is further annotated below:
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In addition to the mode of operation shown associated with Fig. 3, the ‘041
`
`specification notes that the “storage router has various modes of operation,”
`
`including a mode in which the storage router routes data between a Fibre Channel
`
`host and a Fibre Channel storage device. Ex. 1001, 6:43-46.
`
`Because communicating SCSI commands over Fibre Channel, mapping
`
`workstations to storage partitions, and using the mapping for routing and access
`
`control were well known in the art at the time of the ‘041 invention, the storage
`
`network described by the ‘041 Patent is simply a collection of components that were
`
`well known in the art at the time of the ‘041 Patent invention. Ex. 1003, ¶ 20-21. 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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Prosecution History
`
`2.
`The ‘041 Patent issued on April 26, 2011, from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`12/690,592 (“the ‘592 application”) filed on Jan. 20, 2010 by Geoffrey B. Hoese and
`
`Jeffry T. Russell. The ‘041 Patent is purportedly a continuation of a string of patent
`
`applications claiming priority to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/001,799, filed on
`
`Dec. 31, 1997.
`
`During the prosecution of the ‘592 application, Patent Owner, in response to a
`
`double patenting rejection over “all of the related Patent/Applications,” filed a
`
`Terminal Disclaimer disclaiming any patent term extending beyond the life of 12 U.S.
`
`Patents and 10 pending-at-the-time U.S. Patent Applications. Ex. 1002, pp. 1647-48,
`
`1689-99. The Examiner then issued a Notice of Allowance without a substantive
`
`rejection of the claims. Ex. 1002, 1722-25.
`
`Based on the above, it appears that during the course of the prosecution of the
`
`‘041 Patent, the Patent Office never substantively considered the relevance of the
`
`CRD Manual, the HP Journal, or the Fibre Channel Standard to the claims.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenges
`1.
`Challenged Claims
`Claims 1-53 of the ‘041 Patent are challenged in this petition.
`
`2.
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`Challenge #1: Claims 1-14, 16-33, 35-50 and 53 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over the CRD-5500 SCSI Raid Controller User’s Manual (“CRD Manual”) in view of
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Ex. 101 1. The HP Journal is thus prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b).
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 15, 34, 51 and 52 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`the CRD Manual and the HP Journal, further view of the Fibre Channel Physical and
`
`Signaling Interface (FC-PH) X3.230 (“Fibre Channel Standard”). The Fibre Channel
`
`Standard is dated June 1, 1994 and was published by the American National Standards
`
`Institute. Thus, it is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`1 The CRD Manual was archived on by December 26, 1996 by the Internet Archive
`Wayback Machine and is available at
`http://web.archive.org/web/19961226085953/http://www.cmd.com/ftproot/pub/rai
`d/5500/manual/crd5500user.pdf. “Prior art disclosures on the Internet or on an
`on¬line database are considered to be publicly available as of the date the item was
`publicly posted.” MPEP § 2128. The PTO identifies the Internet Archive Wayback
`Machine as a mechanism for determining the publication date of electronic
`documents such as those from the Internet. See,
`http://uspto.gov/patents/resources/methods/aiplafall02paper.jsp.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`3.
`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. §
`
`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). Additionally, 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., IPR2013-00569, 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.
`“native low level block protocol”
`This claim term is found in claims 1, 6, 20, 25, 37 and 42. In the Crossroads
`
`Systems, Inc. v. 3PAR litigation2 (in connection with related U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035),
`
`the District Court construed “native low level block protocol” to mean “a set of rules
`
`or standards that enable computers to exchange information and do not involve the
`
`
`2 Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3PAR, Inc., et. al., no. 1-10-cv-00652 (W.D. Tex.
`2010).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`overhead of high level protocols and file systems typically required by network
`
`servers.” Ex. 1010, p. 13.
`
`The specification does not provide an explicit definition of “native low level
`
`block protocol.” The specification, however, 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.” Ex. 1001, 3:46-50. With reference to Fig. 3, the
`
`specification 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 4:47-53. One example in the specification of a native low level
`
`block protocol command is a “SCSI command.” Id. at 5:59-63.
`
`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 SCSI protocol.” Ex. 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
`
`Ex. 1003, pp. 55-57, 62-64.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`ii.
`This term is found in claims 1-4, 7, 12, 13, 19-23, 26, 31, 32, 37-40, 43, 48, 49
`
`“remote”
`
`and 53. 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.” Ex. 1010, p. 12.
`
`The specification does not provide an explicit definition of “remote.” The
`
`specification does describe 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.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:8-14 (emphasis added). The specification 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 1:51-59.
`
`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.” Ex. 1003 at JJ 32-36.
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1003, pp. 39-40, 57, 90, 104-105.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`Identification of How the Claims Are Unpatentable
`i.
`Challenge #1: 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. Ex.
`
`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:
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.” Ex. 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. Ex. 1003, p.
`
`25. 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. Ex. 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. Ex. 1003,
`
`p. 26:
`
`As an aspect of this, each mapped redundancy group “will appear to the host as a
`
`different disk drive.” Ex. 1004, p. 3-6.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`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.” Ex. 1004, p. 1-1. For
`
`example, the CRD-5500 Controller “may make redundancy group 8 available on 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. Ex.
`
`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:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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).” Ex. 1005, p. 1 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`(b)
`
`Summary of the HP Journal
`
`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.” Ex. 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 additionally provides many
`
`reasons a Fibre Channel communication link is superior to a SCSI bus (e.g., longer
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`distances and higher bandwidth, smaller connectors). Id. at p. 94. It further 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.” Ex. 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. Additionally, the
`
`article 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
`
`modules in the CRD-5500 Controller with a Fibre Channel I/O host module. See Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶¶ 48-57.
`
`First, the CRD Manual teaches that the modular design of CRD-5500
`
`Controller accepts different types of modules to interface with different transport
`
`media. Ex. 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.” Ex. 1005, p. 1.
`
`Second, the HP Journal teaches that “today’s parallel bus architectures are
`
`reaching their limits.” Ex. 1006, p. 5. More specifically, the HP Journal teaches that
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`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, the HP Journal 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). Additionally, “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 commands
`
`may be “encapsulated and transported within Fibre Channel frames.” Id. at pp. 94-95;
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 51.
`
`The HP Journal additionally teaches one of ordinary skill in the art 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; Ex. 1003, ¶ 53.
`
`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 the
`
`“host side” of the CRD-5500 Controller with a Fibre Channel I/O host module. Ex.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`1003, ¶ 53. In some instances, one of ordinary skill in the art would have also been
`
`motivated to replace the SCSI I/O modules on the “disk side” of the controller with
`
`one or more Fibre Channel I/O modules. Both substitutions 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. A Fibre Channel-based
`
`I/O module would have allowed the CRD-5500 Controller to communicate with
`
`hosts and/or disks via a Fibre Channel transport medium rather than via SCSI buses,
`
`thereby overcoming many of the known limitations of SCSI buses as described in the
`
`HP Journal. Id.
`
`Additionally, the beneficial result of modifying the CRD-5 500 Controller to
`
`interface with a Fibre Channel transport medium would have been predictable because
`
`(i) the CRD-5500 Controller was specifically designed to support Fibre Channel, (ii)
`
`the HP 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, such as the
`
`CRD-5500 Controller. Ex. 1006, pp. 94-95; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 54, 55.
`
`Moreover, to the extent any modifications of the CRD Manual would have
`
`been needed 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
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`storage. Ex. 1003, ¶ 56. For example, because the CRD-5500 Controller was intended
`
`to be used with Fibre Channel, it already includes high-performance hardware
`
`components capable of supporting high rates of data movement. CQ¬1005, p. 2; Ex.
`
`1004, p. 1-3; Ex. 1003, ¶ 56. And, because the firmware in the CRD-5 500 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. Ex.
`
`1004, p. 4-14; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 41, 56. 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. Ex. 1003, ¶ 56.
`
`In that regard, 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, 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.”).
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, the CRD-5500 Controller’s ability to accept different I/O modules and
`
`compatibility with high speed serial interfaces such as Fibre Channel, as taught by the
`
`CRD Manual and as evidenced by the CRD-5500 Data Sheet, in view of the
`
`advantages of using a Fibre Channel I/O module (e.g., increased bandwidth), as taught
`
`by the HP Journal, together produce the obvious, beneficial, and predictable result of
`
`utilizing a Fibre Channel I/O module in the CRD-5500 to communicate with hosts
`
`using a Fibre Channel transport medium. Ex. 1003, ¶ 57.
`
`(d) Detailed Analysis
`
`The following analysis describes how the CRD Manual in view of the HP
`
`Journal renders obvious each and every element of at least claims 1-14, 16-33, 35-50,
`
`and 53 of the ‘041 Patent. A corresponding claim chart with even more detail is
`
`contained in Dr. Hospodor’s expert declaration. See Ex. 1003, pp. 36-127.
`
`Claim 1
`[1.0] “A storage router for providing virtual local storage on remote storage
`devices”
`
`The CRD Manual discloses this limitation because it teaches a CRD-5500
`
`Controller that routes data between hosts and SCSI disk arrays. Ex. 1004, p. 1-1, 1-4,
`
`2-4. The CRD Manual further teaches that the CRD-5500 Controller provides virtual
`
`local storage because “each partition will appear to the host as a different disk drive.”
`
`Id. at p. 3-6. With respect to the recitation in the preamble that the storage devices are
`
`“remote,” Figure 1-2 of the CRD Manual illustrates that the storage devices are
`
`indirectly connected to the hosts via the CRD-5500 Controller.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, the CRD-5500 Controller that (i) routes data between hosts and disk
`
`drives, (ii) indirectly connects hosts and storage devices, and (iii) and provides
`
`partitions that appear to the hosts to be as a disk drive, as taught by the CRD Manual,
`
`discloses “a storage router for providing virtual local storage on remote storage
`
`devices to devices,” as recited in the claim. See Ex. 1003, pp. 37-40.
`
`Further, if “remote” is interpreted as either (i) the storage devices are separated
`
`from the hosts by a distance greater than allowed by a conventional parallel network
`
`interconnect or (ii) the storage devices are indirectly connected through at least one
`
`serial network transport medium, then utilizing a Fibre Channel serial transport
`
`medium, as taught by the HP Journal, with the CRD-5500 Controller render obvious
`
`“remote storage devices.” For example, the serial Fibre Channel link allows “distance
`
`options from ten meters on copper to ten kilometers over single-mode optical fiber.”
`
`Ex. 1006, p. 99; Ex. 1003, pp. 39-40.
`
`[1.1] “a first controller operable to interface with a first transport medium,
`wherein the first medium is a serial transport media”
`
`The CRD Manual in combination with the HP Journal renders obvious this
`
`limitation because (i) the CRD Manual teaches that the CRD-5500 Controller includes
`
`nine slots for replaceable “I/O modules” (controllers) that interface with “SCSI
`
`buses” (transport media), Ex. 1004, p. 1-1, 2-1, 2-4, 3-1; and (ii) the HP Journal
`
`teaches a “generic Fibre Channel host bus adapter board using the Tachyon chip” that
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`interfaces with a Fibre Channel “serial” transport medium, which is designed to
`
`“replace” SCSI buses. Ex. 1006, p. 101, 111; Fig. 14.
`
`Thus, the CRD-5500 Controller’s ability to accept different I/O modules that
`
`interface with different transport media to communicate with hosts, as taught by the
`
`CRD Manual, in view of the Fibre Channel I/O module and Fibre Channel transport
`
`medium (which is a serial transport medium), as taught by the HP Journal, render
`
`obvious “a first controller operable to interface with a first transport me