Docket No.: 0100157-00270
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`____________________________________________
`
`EMC Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`Lenovo (United States) Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`NetApp, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00374
`Patent No. 8,275,827
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`____________________________________________
`
`EMC Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`Lenovo (United States) Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`NetApp, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures I, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2017-00374
`Patent No. 8,275,827
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`OCEANSTORE TEACHES OR SUGGESTS ALL LIMITATIONS
`(CLAIMS 1 AND 13). ..................................................................................... 2
`A. OceanStore Teaches the “Representing” Limitation ............................. 2
`1.
`IV Attempts to Artificially Narrow the Claims .......................... 3
`2.
`OceanStore Teaches the “Representing” Limitation even
`under IV’s Narrow Reading ........................................................ 9
`OceanStore Discloses The “Allocating” Limitation ........................... 14
`B.
`III. OCEANSTORE TEACHES THE “CENTRALIZED SERVER”
`LIMITATION (CLAIMS 4 AND 16) ........................................................... 17
`A.
`IV Premises its Argument on an Artificially Narrow Reading of
`the Claims ............................................................................................ 18
`OceanStore Discloses a Centralized Server even under IV’s
`Narrow Interpretation .......................................................................... 20
`OceanStore Did Not Criticize Centralized Servers Generally ............ 23
`C.
`IV. OCEANSTORE TEACHES THE DOWNLOADING SOFTWARE
`LIMITATIONS (CLAIMS 5 AND 17) ......................................................... 23
`IV’S EXPERT CONFIRMED OCEANSTORE’S PUBLICATION ............ 26
`IV’S ARGUMENTS ON LEVEL OF SKILL ARE IRRELEVANT ........... 26
`
`
`B.
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”) confirms that the challenged claims of
`
`the ʼ827 patent are invalid. As the Petition explained, the ’827 patent claims old
`
`and obvious distributed storage systems, in which ordinary distributed devices are
`
`configured to mimic NAS devices by making their otherwise unused or under-
`
`utilized storage available for use by other network-connected entities. The
`
`challenged claims stood rejected for years until they were narrowed to require so-
`
`called “location information.” Petition (“Pet.”), 9. The Petition demonstrated
`
`there was nothing new or non-obvious about the claims or their recitation of
`
`“location information,” which OceanStore satisfied in multiple ways.
`
`In its POR, Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures (“IV”) does not (and cannot)
`
`dispute that the “location information” limitation was well known in the prior art.
`
`Instead, IV attempts to re-write the claims to demand that each distributed device
`
`represents itself as a separate NAS device. POR, 8-11. The Board properly
`
`rejected the same artificial narrowing of the claims as contradictory to the ʼ827
`
`specification in its Decision to Institute (“DI”), and should do so again here. DI,
`
`20-21.
`
`IV’s other attempts to distinguish OceanStore rely on old, obvious, and basic
`
`features that are not even discussed in the ’827 patent. IV’s attempts to read into
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`the claims specific, narrow limitations about features that are not described
`
`anywhere in the specification should be rejected.
`
`II. OCEANSTORE TEACHES OR SUGGESTS ALL LIMITATIONS
`(CLAIMS 1 AND 13).
`IV disputes two limitations it challenged in its Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response (“POPR”)—the “representing” and “allocating” limitations—on
`
`substantially the same arguments. Compare POR, 16, 22 with POPR, 10, 16. The
`
`Board properly rejected these arguments in its DI, and should do so again.
`
`A. OceanStore Teaches the “Representing” Limitation
`OceanStore software causes pool devices (e.g., desktop workstations with
`
`excess storage) to represent, or mimic, dedicated NAS devices. Pet., 31; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶102-104. The parties agree that “NAS device” as used in the ʼ827 patent would at
`
`least include “a device that makes data storage resources available to network-
`
`connected user devices” under the term’s broadest reasonable interpretation. Pet.,
`
`10; POR, 6-7; Ex. 1001 (“ʼ827 patent”), 2:31-34.
`
`In OceanStore, an “ocean” of storage resources is provided by an
`
`aggregation of “pools” of storage, each of which can cache or serve data to the
`
`user devices. Pet., 20; Ex. 1002, ¶74; Ex. 1003, 191. Moreover, each pool device
`
`makes it storage available for use by others as depicted in Figures 2 and 3. Pet.,
`
`23-26; Ex. 1002, ¶77-92. OceanStore also provides “facades” to its underlying
`
`API that provided a “traditional, familiar interface” such as UNIX, a transactional
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`database, and a gateway to the World Wide Web. Pet., 21; Ex. 1002, ¶75; Ex.
`
`1003, 197-198. Thus, each OceanStore pool device represents, or mimics, a
`
`dedicated “NAS device.” Pet., 31-32; Ex. 1002, ¶102-104; Ex. 1003, 197-198; Ex.
`
`1053 (“Shenoy Dep.”), 35:18-36:4 (OceanStore “is a distributed system” whose
`
`“goal is to exploit storage on a number of computers to make it available to
`
`users.”).
`
`IV premises its argument on an artificially narrow reading of the claims.
`
`Regardless, OceanStore teaches the limitation even under IV’s flawed
`
`construction.
`
`1.
`IV Attempts to Artificially Narrow the Claims
`IV does not contest that OceanStore discloses the “representing” limitation
`
`under the plain reading of the claims described in the Petition and DI. Instead, IV
`
`recycles the same argument previously rejected by the Board in the form of a claim
`
`construction. The POPR argued that OceanStore did not disclose the
`
`“representing” limitation because “the NAS component must represent that each
`
`distributed device includes its own NAS device.” POPR, 10. Likewise, the POR
`
`argues this limitation should be construed to mean “using the corresponding
`
`software-based NAS components of the selected distributed devices to cause each
`
`selected distributed device to separately appear to network-connected user devices
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`as a dedicated NAS device.” POR, 8.1 The Board should reject this construction
`
`for at least three reasons.2
`
`First, the broadest reasonable interpretation should at least cover the
`
`disclosed embodiments—in which distributed devices are configured to mimic
`
`NAS devices that cooperate together in a NAS fabric—rather than be constrained
`
`to only those embodiments in which NAS devices “stand alone.” See EPOS Techs.
`
`Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (rejecting
`
`construction “because it reads out preferred embodiments”); Anchor Wall Sys., Inc.
`
`v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`For example, in connection with Figure 21,3 the ʼ827 specification states
`
`“[t]he implementation can be accomplished in a variety of ways. A relatively
`
`simple implementation is to have the devices simply mimic the functionality of
`
`
`
` 1
`
` All emphasis used herein is added unless otherwise stated.
`
`2 For efficiency, Petitioners have included this substantively identical claim
`
`construction argument in its Replies in IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439.
`
`3 IV does not contest that the ʼ827 claims focus on the subject matter added on
`
`April 13, 2001, when applicant added Figure 21 and its description at col. 42:29-
`
`46:10. See Pet., 5-10; POR, 1-5.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`stand-alone NAS devices, while a more complex implementation is to provide a
`
`storage fabric across the Intranet or Internet where hundreds or thousands of
`
`devices work cooperatively as NAS devices in conjunction with server systems that
`
`assist in controlling and managing the storage function of the NAS fabric.” ʼ827
`
`patent, 42:65-43:5. The specification then describes the “simple implementation”
`
`as the first, or “stand-alone only NAS device implementation.” Id., 43:44-47; Ex.
`
`2003, ¶23. It describes the “more complex” implementations as the second, or
`
`“NAS device fabric implementation” (ʼ827 patent, 43:59-63, 44:9-12; Ex. 2003,
`
`¶24), and the third, or “server assisted implementation” (ʼ827 patent, 44:24-27; Ex.
`
`2003, ¶25).
`
`The claims should be read to include all of the relevant embodiments,
`
`including at least the “NAS device fabric” implementation. Indeed, that is the only
`
`embodiment in which IV’s expert, Dr. Shenoy, could identify disclosure of the
`
`recited “location information” that was required to secure allowance of the claims.
`
`Shenoy Dep., 43:16-44:16. IV’s construction is plainly flawed to the extent it
`
`excludes this cooperative architecture or otherwise limits the claims to “stand-
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`alone” embodiments where “each” distributed device acts as a “separate” NAS
`
`device that in no way cooperates with other mimicked NAS devices.4
`
`Second, IV distorts the claims’ use of “respectively” to contradict the
`
`specification. The complete claim phrase—“the selected distributed devices
`
`respectively comprise NAS devices”—relates one plurality (i.e., the distributed
`
`devices) to another (i.e., the NAS devices), confirming a many-to-many
`
`correspondence rather than excluding it. By contrast, IV’s construction requires a
`
`one-to-one correspondence in which “each” distributed device must correspond to
`
`a “separate” NAS device, two words that do not appear anywhere in the limitation,
`
`and as described above, contradict the specification. Accent Packaging, Inc. v.
`
`Leggett & Platt, Inc., 707 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (term “‘one’ appearing
`
`directly after the phrase ‘a respective’” should not be “viewed as limiting” where
`
`that construction would exclude disclosed embodiment). In the context of the
`
`
`
` 4
`
` The specification confirms that when each device appears as its own NAS device,
`
`location libraries are “not required,” and “each of these … NAS devices…knows
`
`nothing of other …NAS devices.” ʼ827 patent, 43:56-58; Shenoy Dep. 54:3-8
`
`(confirming that stand-alone embodiment does not need to use location
`
`information because “clients connect to the stand-alone NAS devices directly”).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`claim language and the specification, the term “respectively” simply connotes
`
`“consequently” (a recognized synonym of “respectively”), making clear that the
`
`mimicked NAS devices are a consequence of the previously recited “software-
`
`based NAS component.” Ex. 1056, ¶14.
`
`Third, IV’s construction is also inconsistent with the dependent claims.
`
`Claim 2 recites “enabling at least one of the selected distributed devices to
`
`function as a stand-alone dedicated NAS device through the use of the respective
`
`client agents for the particular distributed device.” Claim 1, being broader, must
`
`encompass configurations in which none of the distributed devices function as a
`
`stand-alone NAS device, i.e., because they all are in a NAS fabric. Thus, claim 2
`
`confirms that claim 1 must encompass the fabric architecture, and contradicts
`
`Patent Owner’s construction to the extent it implies claim 1 is limited to stand-
`
`alone configurations. Anchor Wall, 340 F.3d at 1308.5
`
`
`
` 5
`
` IV also argues that the agreed interpretation of “NAS device” somehow compels
`
`its construction of the “representing” limitation. POR, 9. But substituting the
`
`agreed interpretation for “NAS device” merely requires that “the selected
`
`distributed devices [plural] respectively comprise devices [plural] that make data
`
`storage resources available to network-connected devices.”
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`Fourth, judging from its POR, IV’s construction is purportedly based on a
`
`single embodiment described in just the first part of a single sentence. See POR,
`
`11. Dr. Shenoy, however, identified “three different NAS architectures” as being
`
`described in the ʼ827 patent. Ex. 2003, ¶¶23-25. Despite describing these
`
`embodiments in his declaration—even after having read the patent “at least a
`
`dozen times”—Dr. Shenoy could not say whether any of these are covered by
`
`claim 1, or whether any of these embodiments meet the “representing” limitation.
`
`Shenoy Dep., 70:12-72:14; 74:1-77:6, 38:17:39:1, 40:3-9.6
`
`For at least these reasons, IV’s construction is inconsistent with the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the claims.
`
`
`
` 6
`
` As shown herein, both the POR and Dr. Shenoy’s declaration only repeat
`
`arguments that IV had made previously in its POPR. Dr. Shenoy, however, did not
`
`begin his work on this case until well after the POPR was filed (Shenoy Dep.,
`
`14:1-6), meaning his opinions are nothing more than repeated attorney argument
`
`that have already been considered and rejected by the Board. Compare, e.g., Ex.
`
`2003, ¶33 with POPR, 6.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`2. OceanStore Teaches the “Representing” Limitation even
`under IV’s Narrow Reading
`Even if IV’s reading of the claims was correct, which it is not, OceanStore
`
`still teaches the “representing” limitation.
`
`(a) OceanStore’s pools do not “appear as a single NAS
`device” by using “a single API”
`IV argues that OceanStore “appear[s] as a single NAS device” because of its
`
`“single API.” POR, 17, 19. This argument is wrong for at least two reasons.
`
`First, having a single API simply means that users have a consistent
`
`interface through which to access storage, e.g., by using the same commands. A
`
`single API does not imply—let alone demand—a single device. Pet., 32; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶104; Ex. 1003, 197-198. For example, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) would understand that multiple NFS servers may be mounted on the
`
`same user node, while read and write requests to these different NAS devices
`
`would pass through the same Unix filesystem API. In other words, OceanStore
`
`discloses accessing multiple NAS devices using a single interface, not accessing a
`
`single NAS device. Ex. 1056, ¶20.
`
`Second, IV erroneously equates having “a single interface” with a user not
`
`“directly accessing each pool and relevant OceanStore node.” POR, 19-20. IV
`
`thus implies that providing “direct access” “for each user” to “each” NAS device is
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`equivalent to “separately appearing” as a NAS device, and under its construction
`
`required by the claims. Id. Ex. 1056, ¶21.
`
`But the claims do not require each NAS device to be “directly accessible” to
`
`each user, or place any constraints on the type of network accesses required for
`
`NAS devices. Nothing in the claim suggests that each user must “see” each of the
`
`NAS devices, as opposed to some user devices seeing some NAS devices, and
`
`other user devices seeing others. Furthermore, IV mischaracterizes the
`
`specification to suggest it demands “direct access.” POR, 19. The specification
`
`states that in some embodiments the NAS devices that receive requests “would
`
`direct user devices to the distributed devices storing the requested data,” connoting
`
`that if that NAS device cannot satisfy the request, it will help locate a device which
`
`may. ʼ827 patent, 44:13-16. Indeed, the specification says nothing about how
`
`users are “directed to” the distributed devices storing the requested data, and
`
`certainly does not demand direct access.7 Ex. 1056, ¶22-23.
`
`
`
` 7
`
` To the extent IV seeks to import this language (i.e., “directing users to the
`
`distributed devices”) into the claims through its claim construction, it would be
`
`inconsistent to import into claim 1 what is already claimed in dependent claim 3:
`
`“receiving an access request from the client device and directing the client device
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`Regardless of whether a “direct access” requirement can be fairly read into
`
`the claims via IV’s construction (and it cannot), in characterizing OceanStore’s
`
`operation, IV admits that OceanStore users can directly access different, individual
`
`nodes (i.e., the devices making their storage resources available to users as “NAS
`
`devices”). POR, 14 (“When a client needs to access data, the client sends a
`
`message to a node specifying the object it wishes to access via its GUID … In the
`
`second stage, after the node that has the requested object is identified, messages
`
`can be directly sent to that node without having to route through the other
`
`nodes.”); Ex. 2003, ¶29 (same (citing Ex. 1003, 194)).
`
`Moreover, as Dr. Kubiatowicz explains, Figure 2 shows how multiple
`
`OceanStore nodes work in a fabric. In one example, a first user connects to node
`
`n1, which can forward that request to node n2 and so on. However, another user, in
`
`a different location, could just as easily first connect to node n2 (e.g., because that
`
`node is closer to this other user) and a third user could connect first to node n3.
`
`Thus, each node could be a first point of contact to a user, and each node can
`
`
`
`to data requested on at least one of the selected distributed devices.” IV does not
`
`dispute that OceanStore teaches the additional limitation recited in claim 3.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`represent itself to clients as a NAS device. Pet., 23-26; Ex. 1002, ¶¶77-92; Ex.
`
`1003, 193-194; Ex. 1056, ¶26.
`
`(b) OceanStore’s nodes appear as separate NAS devices
`IV’s second argument concedes that OceanStore’s pools may appear as
`
`multiple NAS devices (as opposed to a single NAS device), but argues that even
`
`then the nodes are still combined such that each node does not appear as a separate
`
`NAS device. POR, 19-20.
`
`To the contrary, the Petition explained how each OceanStore node (e.g.,
`
`desktop workstation) makes its resources (e.g., excess storage) available to client
`
`user devices (thus showing that each node satisfies the agreed understanding of
`
`“NAS device”). See Pet. 24-26 (“a query for a data object (identified by a GUID)
`
`… is hashed and compared to a local Bloom filter which indicates whether or not
`
`the node stores the object; if the node does not hold the object, local information
`
`indicates which neighbor (e.g., n2) holds the object”); Ex. 1003, Figs. 2-3.
`
`As shown above and as IV admits, each node in OceanStore makes its
`
`storage available for use, and is directly accessed by the client users. POR, 14
`
`(“after the node that has the requested object is identified, messages can be directly
`
`sent to that node”). Accordingly, even if IV were correct that (i) providing “direct
`
`access” to “each” NAS device means it “separately appears” as a NAS device, and
`
`(ii) that “OceanStore does not require user devices to connect to, or have
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`knowledge of, individual nodes,” IV still concedes that “messages can be directly
`
`sent” to different, individual nodes in OceanStore. Id.
`
`IV also argues that Dr. Kubiatowicz relied on his personal knowledge “with
`
`respect to the concept of ‘pools’ mentioned in OceanStore.” POR, 21. But Dr.
`
`Kubiatowicz merely relied on what the OceanStore publication teaches or suggests
`
`to a POSITA. Ex. 2002, 119:13-120:1. OceanStore discloses the same detail, if
`
`not more, about the connection between the pools, nodes, and routing (as
`
`confirmed by IV’s own description (POR, 14)), than the ʼ827 patent does about the
`
`NAS devices, location information, and accessing data where “hundreds or
`
`thousands of devices work cooperatively as NAS devices in conjunction with
`
`server systems that assist in controlling and managing the storage function of the
`
`NAS fabric.” ʼ827 patent, 43:2-5; Shenoy Dep., 46:13-47:15 (confirming that the
`
`specification does not disclose “specifically any method” of “storing location
`
`information and looking them up.”). The reason is simple: by the time of
`
`OceanStore and the ʼ827 patent, these basic concepts were well known and thus
`
`extensive detail was not needed. Ex. 1056, ¶30; see e.g., In re Epstein, 32 F. 3d
`
`1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“The Board’s observation that appellant did not
`
`provide the type of detail in his specification that he now argues is necessary in
`
`prior art references supports the Board’s finding that one skilled in the art would
`
`have known how to implement the features of the references.”).
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`B. OceanStore Discloses The “Allocating” Limitation
`As the Petition explained, “OceanStore software would allocate the excess
`
`storage [e.g., on a desktop workstation] for use by OceanStore users (i.e., making it
`
`available for other devices to use) but would reserve other workstation storage for
`
`purely local use, e.g., to store computer programs, local operation system and the
`
`like.” Pet., 45; Ex. 1002, ¶104, 138; Ex. 1003, 198.
`
`IV again repeats the same arguments that the Board preliminarily rejected in
`
`the DI. Compare POR, 22-28 with POPR, 16-18. For at least the reasons below,
`
`the Board should reject these arguments again.
`
`First, IV argues that OceanStore does not disclose several details
`
`purportedly required to teach the “allocating” limitation, such as “some type of
`
`heuristic to determine the amount of excess storage to allocate to OceanStore.”
`
`POR, 26. Dr. Shenoy admitted, however, that he could identify no specific method
`
`of allocation required by the claims, nor any specific method mentioned in the ʼ827
`
`specification. Shenoy Dep., 83:4-18. IV never contests that “allocating” available
`
`storage for particular uses was well-known and entirely conventional, and Dr.
`
`Shenoy did not identify “allocating” as a distinctive or inventive aspect of the
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`claims.8 Shenoy Dep., 38:6-15; id. 83:4-18; Ex. 2002, 108:2-14 (Dr. Kubiatowicz
`
`confirming that “one of ordinary skill would clearly understand that you need to
`
`allocate data in order to represent that you have an available amount of unused or
`
`under-utilized storage”).
`
`Second, IV no longer contests that an “OceanStore software-based
`
`component would assess the unused, i.e., excess, storage resources of the device
`
`(e.g., desktop workstation with excess storage space) when making this excess
`
`storage available for use by other devices on the network.” Pet., 30; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶101; Ex. 1003, 190-191. However, IV provides no explanation for its argument
`
`that an OceanStore node which is conceded to both (i) assess unused storage and
`
`(ii) make it available to other devices, does not at least suggest that the node has
`
`
`
` 8
`
` In fact, when asked what he recalled thinking distinguished the ʼ827 patent from
`
`the distributed storage systems he knew of the first time he read the patent Dr.
`
`Shenoy stated that “the only thing I remember is the patent was long.” Shenoy
`
`Dep., 38:6-15.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`“allocated” the assessed storage for use by the other devices to which it “mak[es]
`
`this excess storage available.”9
`
`OceanStore thus discloses the “allocating” limitations at least at the same
`
`level as the ʼ827 patent, which is to say that nothing unique about “allocating” is
`
`described in the ʼ827 patent, or needed to be described given a POSITA’s
`
`knowledge. See e.g., In re Epstein, 32 F.3d at 1568.
`
`Third, IV argues even if OceanStore teaches “allocation” by a local user, the
`
`claim requires that the NAS component must do the allocation. POR, 27-28
`
`(“local users would generally want to have a certain degree of control over the
`
`amount of storage reserved for OceanStore use”). This argument is directly
`
`contrary to the ’827 specification, which confirms that “[w]hen these user-based
`
`constraints are utilized, the NAS component will recognize the constraints placed
`
`on it and adhere to the constraints.” ʼ827 patent, 45:26-29. Thus, as the
`
`specification teaches, “user specified constraints” (which the specification includes
`
`
`
` 9
`
` Indeed, when asked to identify where the specification explains how the
`
`specification describes “assessing” unused storage, Dr. Shenoy pointed only to a
`
`disclosure that “devices can provide storage capabilities that allow these devices to
`
`appear as dedicated NAS devices.” Shenoy Dep., 81:21-82:14.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`in the category of “storage priority controls” (id., 45:7-30)), are simply
`
`“recognize[d]” and “adhere[d] to” by the NAS component. Ex. 1056, ¶36.
`
`As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “allocating” would
`
`encompass situations where users impose constraints on the NAS components that
`
`perform the allocating. Indeed, these “storage priority controls” are recited in
`
`dependent claim 21. Accordingly, “allocating” in claim 13 should certainly allow
`
`for user specified constraints. ʼ827 patent, 45:26-29; Tr. of Columbia Univ. v.
`
`Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“construing the
`
`independent claim to exclude material covered by the dependent claim would be
`
`inconsistent”). IV does not dispute that OceanStore discloses these storage priority
`
`controls. Pet., 44; POR, 41; Ex. 1002, ¶133.
`
`III. OCEANSTORE TEACHES THE “CENTRALIZED SERVER”
`LIMITATION (CLAIMS 4 AND 16)
`The Petition described at least three ways in which OceanStore teaches the
`
`use of centralized servers at least at the same level as the ʼ827 patent. OceanStore
`
`teaches:
`
`1.
`
`Airports and cafés installing servers to provide better performance,
`
`achieving OceanStore’s stated goal of “exploiting caching close to clients.” Pet.
`
`37-38.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`Tiers of servers providing “server-side” computations, such as
`
`2.
`
`updating objects to keep them encrypted in an untrusted distributed infrastructure.
`
`Pet., 39.
`
`3.
`
`Event handlers summarizing stored local events and forwarding that
`
`information to parent nodes that provide optimization services. Pet., 40.
`
`IV repeats the same failed arguments from its POPR, each of which the
`
`Board should reject again.
`
`A.
`
`IV Premises its Argument on an Artificially Narrow Reading of
`the Claims
`IV argues in this IPR that the ʼ827 patent’s “centralized server” requires “a
`
`single server or a single group of servers that are commonly controlled and
`
`managed.” POR, 29-30. This is in contrast to the argument it makes in IPR2017-
`
`00439, where it contends that the “centralized server” must “form a known,
`
`physical ‘center’ from the perspective of the distributed devices,” and that it “must
`
`be physically separate from the client devices (claimed ‘distributed devices’) that it
`
`serves.” See IPR2017-00439 POR, 42. IV makes no attempt to reconcile its two
`
`constructions, or to explain why one construction of the same term, from the same
`
`patent, should apply when considering one piece of prior art, but a different
`
`construction should apply when considering another.
`
`Here, IV premises each of its attempts to distinguish OceanStore on its
`
`flawed “common control/management” construction, which should be rejected.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`Nothing in the specification indicates that common control or management over
`
`centralized servers is in any way a required technical feature or a patentable
`
`distinction over the prior art. In fact, the only passage relied on by IV says merely
`
`that the “NAS server systems 104 … are typically a single server machine or a
`
`relatively small group of server machines that are commonly controlled and
`
`managed, for example, as to physical location and authorized use.” ʼ827 patent,
`
`44:47-51. But even IV admits that these “typical” aspects of the centralized
`
`servers are not limiting, because in IPR2017-00439, IV does not include any of
`
`these aspects in its construction. IPR2017-00439 POR, 41 n.3.
`
`The specification further confirms that the “common control and
`
`management” aspect of IV’s construction is not a meaningful distinction of the
`
`invention. For example, the specification notes that the “distributed devices” may
`
`or may not be commonly controlled or managed, strongly implying that common
`
`control or management over the centralized server is irrelevant to the invention.
`
`ʼ827 patent, 44:57-60 (“With respect to intranet-connected user devices and client
`
`devices, there will often be more common control and management, for example,
`
`with respect to internal company resources.”). Ex. 1056, ¶42.
`
`By contrast, the specification repeatedly describes the common functions
`
`provided by the centralized servers to the distributed devices, i.e., the “assistance”
`
`they provide in the “server-assisted architecture.” Id., 44:24-27 (“In the third
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`server assisted architecture, server systems 104 facilitate the NAS functionality, for
`
`example, by providing centralized management, control and support for the NAS
`
`architecture.”). The specification defines this assistance broadly. Id., 44:24-35
`
`(providing services including “indexing, monitoring, back-up, security, and other
`
`services”); see also Pet. 37. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“centralized servers” is not limited to “a single server or a single group of servers
`
`that are commonly controlled and managed” (POR, 29-30), but instead includes at
`
`least servers that provide the kinds of common, centralized assistance described to
`
`enable the distributed devices to “work cooperatively as NAS devices.” ʼ827
`
`patent, 43:1-5 (describing a “more complex implementation” that provides “a
`
`storage fabric … where hundreds or thousands of devices work cooperatively as
`
`NAS devices in conjunction with server systems that assist in controlling and
`
`managing the storage fabric”). Ex. 1056, ¶43.
`
`B. OceanStore Discloses a Centralized Server even under IV’s
`Narrow Interpretation
`Moreover, even under IV’s narrow reading of the claim, OceanStore still
`
`discloses a “centralized server.”
`
`First, IV argues that OceanStore “merely discloses that ‘airports or small
`
`cafes could install servers on their premises to give customers better performance,”
`
`without purporting to explain how. POR, 33-34 (quoting Ex. 1003, 190). As the
`
`Petition explained, a POSITA would understand that such a server would “monitor
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00374
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`and manage usage” in addition to serving as a local cache, “in exchange for a
`
`dividend from the utility provider.” Pet., 38; Ex. 1002, ¶118; Ex. 1003, 190-191
`
`(describing goals of “exploit[ing] caching close to … clients” and that “data can be
`
`cached anywhere, anytime”). Monitoring and managing usage, as well as serving
`
`as a local cache, are both within the functions the ʼ827 patent describes as
`
`performed by the centralized servers. ʼ827 patent, 44:24-35 (describing provision
`
`of “centralized management, control and support” by “indexing, monitoring, back-
`
`up, security, and other services”).
`
`Moreover, as IV concedes, a single airport node would “act as its own local
`
`cache server for nearby users” (POR, 32), thereby managing the NAS service for
`
`the users and distributed devices in the airport. Even if other (single) airport nodes
`
`managed the NAS service for users and distributed devices in other airports, that
`
`merely shows multiple airports each using OceanStore to practice the claims. Ex.
`
`1056, ¶48.
`
`Second, IV argues that OceanStore’s “primary” tier of server machines, used
`
`to update objects, are not centralized because “OceanStore’s infrastructure is
`
`fundamentally untrusted” and thus cannot be “commonly controlled.” POR, 34.
`
`IV mischaracterizes the purpose of the “primary tier,” which is to address this very
`
`problem (i
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
