UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`EMC CORPORATION, LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., and
`NETAPP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 5, 2018
`__________
`
`
`
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and DANIEL
`J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`EMC CORPORATION, LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., and
`NETAPP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 5, 2018
`__________
`
`
`
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and DANIEL
`J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`PETER M. DICHIARA, ESQ.
`MICHAEL SMITH, ESQ.
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`(617) 526-6466
`peter.dichiara@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`DANIEL BLOCK, ESQ.
`STEVE PAPPAS
`Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`dblock@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, March 5,
`
`2018, commencing at 12:00 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE BRADEN: Good afternoon. We are convened here today
`for oral arguments in IPR 2017-00374 and IPR 2017-00439, both of which
`challenge U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827.
`I am Judge Braden. Also appearing remotely is Judge Galligan and
`our colleague in the room with you in Alexandria is Judge Smith.
`As Judge Galligan and I are appearing via video, we require
`counselors to speak directly into the microphone at the podium when talking
`and to identify specific slide numbers when referring to demonstratives.
`Each party today has 45 minutes total time to argue both cases.
`Petitioners, EMC Corporation, Lenovo (United States) Inc. and
`NetApp, Inc., have the ultimate burden of establishing unpatentability.
`Therefore, petitioners will open the hearing by presenting its case as
`presented in its petitions regarding the unalleged, sorry, regarding the
`alleged unpatentability of the challenge claims.
`Petitioners may reserve
`rebuttal time.
`Thereafter, patent owner, Intellectual Ventures LLC, will respond to
`petitioner's arguments. Petitioner then will go last and use any reserved
`rebuttal time to address arguments for either the grounds in either the
`petitions.
`Otherwise, the parties may use its allotted time to discuss the two
`cases in any order they choose. We ask, however, that you make it clear
`which case and which claims you are addressing.
`
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`
`In order to ensure clarity of the record, following the hearing, please
`provide the court reporter with a list of names and word spellings.
`Lastly, we ask that the parties hold any objections regarding party
`arguments until it is their time at the podium. To be clear, we will not take
`objections during a party's argument. You must wait until it is your turn at
`the podium to note any objections.
`I will maintain a clock and inform the parties when they have five
`minutes left. If possible, if we have a clock in the room running as well,
`we will try to do so.
`Now let's get started with appearances for both sides. We will start
`with petitioner.
`MR. DICHIARA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is
`Peter Dichiara, and with me today is Michael Smith. And we will be
`presenting on behalf of the petitioners.
`I'll be focusing on the 374 IPR, and Mr. Smith will be focusing on
`the 439 IPR. And we'll have a clean handoff on that.
`JUDGE BRADEN: Very good. We appreciate that. Patent
`owner?
`MR. BLOCK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Daniel Block from
`the law firm of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein and Fox on behalf of patent
`owner, Intellectual Ventures.
`I'll be presenting both the 374 and 439 proceedings. With me today
`is Steve Pappas of Sterne, Kessler as well as James Hietala and Tim Seeley
`from Intellectual Ventures.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Very good. Thank you, patent owner.
`Petitioner, do you wish to reserve any rebuttal time?
`MR. DICHIARA: Yes, we do, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BRADEN: How much?
`MR. DICHIARA: We'll see how it goes. We think it's probably
`going to be about 15 minutes.
`JUDGE BRADEN: All right. We'll note that. Thank you. All
`right petitioner, you may begin your arguments when ready.
`MR. DICHIARA: Good afternoon. May it please the Board, as I
`just mentioned, my name is Peter Dichiara, and with me today is Michael
`Smith from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.
`And we represent the petitioners and the two IPRs we're discussing
`this afternoon. With us today is Mr. Tom Brown from petitioner EMC.
`Turning to slide 2, we're here to discuss the 827 patent and why the
`challenged claims are unpatentable.
`And as we see in slide 3, the 827 patent concerns something known
`as the distributed storage system.
`As we explained in our papers -- this is one of the annotated figures -
`- from our petition, there are user devices shown in red on the left. The
`green entities on the bottom in the slide are called NAS client devices. The
`claim refers to them as selected distributed devices. And the blue entities
`in the slide are called data location libraries. And in the claims, they're
`referred to as location information.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`
`And in short, the way the system operates is that those green entities
`are ordinary computers. But by software -- or via software, they're made to
`represent themselves as or mimic NAS devices, N-A-S. And they do this
`by making their otherwise underutilized storage available to the user devices
`connected to them on the network.
`Turning to slide 4, I have a portion of the file history on the screen
`which we think is some important context.
`As we explained in our papers, this patent was stuck in the patent
`office during normal prosecution for a long time, for about ten years.
`Patent Office wasn't finding anything distinctive until eventually the
`applicants narrowed the claims to recite the location information as we see
`here on the screen.
`And the reason why we think this is important is that, given this
`context, one might reasonably expect that it's the location information which
`was supposedly distinctive over the prior art.
`But as we know from the various papers in the IPRs, this isn't the
`case. In each IPR, the petitions primary references disclose the location
`information multiple times over. And in fact, the patent owner hasn't even
`attempted to dispute that fact.
`JUDGE BRADEN: All right. Well, given that case, can we go
`ahead and move to claim construction?
`MR. DICHIARA: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BRADEN: And specifically, I'd like you to focus on the
`representing limitation.
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`
`MR. DICHIARA: Certainly, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BRADEN: I understand, and I don't want to put words in
`patent owners' mouths, but I understand from their briefs that there's an
`argument regarding representing with a corresponding software-based NAS
`component that the selected distributed devices respectively comprise NAS
`devices having an available amount of storage resources.
`I understand their arguments to mean that the term "respectively" --
`which according to one of their exhibits -- is defined as individually and
`separately, meaning that for every NAS device, you have to have a separate
`representation of the distributed device.
`Explain to me petitioner's position, either why you don't agree and
`explicitly explain to me if we were to go with patent owner's construction,
`why would you argue that OceanStore would still render these claims
`obvious?
`MR. DICHIARA: Yes, Your Honor, happy to. So let me go to
`the claim construction first, and I think the slide that I want, I just need to
`jump to, is slide 13.
`And as we set forth in our papers, we feel OceanStore satisfies this
`claim limitation under any of the constructions. But focusing on patent
`owner's, we felt that the patent owner's construction was improper for two
`reasons. One of which is the one you just mentioned, Your Honor.
`So if we jump to slide 15, I think this is the --
`JUDGE BRADEN: Well, I understand their arguments mean when
`they say it's caused each selected distributive device to separately appear, as
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`you have on slide 13. But I believe that's based on the recitation of the
`word "respectively" in the claim.
`MR. DICHIARA: Correct, Your Honor, correct. That's --
`JUDGE BRADEN: Okay.
`MR. DICHIARA: -- their basis for it. In slide 15, we're trying to
`zone in on just that point about the each and the separate.
`We feel that the claim term is broad enough to cover something like
`that, but it's not limited to something just like that. We don't think that the
`spec demands this one-to-one correspondence that they seem to be insisting
`upon.
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Okay. I find that interesting. So you say the
`spec doesn't demand it, but does the claim itself demand it?
`MR. DICHIARA: Well, we think no, Your Honor. And we think
`the reason is this.
`If I can go back to slide 13 and show the actual claim language, it's
`talking about a set of selected distributed devices respectively comprising, I
`know I changed comprised to comprising, NAS devices.
`And what it's talking about, as we set forth in our opening papers, is
`really about the representing step. It's that via this software, the
`corresponding software-based NAS components, the selected distributed
`devices are going to be made to appear or mimic a set of NAS devices.
`That's something that's confirmed in the file of history.
`And so we feel that follows, both from having one set of devices, the
`selected distributed devices, and another set of devices, the NAS devices,
`
`8
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`and that the respectively comprise is saying that these distributed devices, in
`essence, are or are becoming, or are being made to represent NAS devices.
`And what they focused on is just the word "respectively" and it's the
`correct dictionary definition. There's a lot of dictionary definitions that talk
`about "respectively".
`Some of them will say that to get their meaning that they're
`proposing, it's usually something where there are a set of two or more items
`corresponding to another set of two or more.
`So for example, Sally and Jane are 14 and 15, respectively, would be
`a way of saying, Sally is known to be 14 and Jane is 15.
`And they accuse of us of reading the word "respectively" out, and I
`don't think that's right at all.
`If you were to take the word "respectively" out of the claim and you
`just said this selective distributed devices comprise NAS devices, that would
`be saying the selected distributed devices include NAS devices. And that,
`in fact, would be reading this whole notion of representing out of the claim.
`What this claim element is talking about is having the selected
`distributed devices mimic NAS devices by virtue of their software.
`We feel it's broad enough to cover a one-to-one correspondence, but
`we don't think it's limited to a one-to-one correspondence.
`That's the nature of our dispute. And at the end of the day, it really
`doesn't matter because OceanStore should satisfy either way in our view.
`JUDGE BRADEN: All right. Explain that to me.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`
`MR. DICHIARA: Okay. Would it make sense for me to talk
`about the other reasons we dispute their claim construction? I don't know
`if you want to --
`JUDGE BRADEN: No, I want to hear about why you believe that
`if we were to agree with their construction, why you believe that OceanStore
`would still read on this claim.
`MR. DICHIARA: Certainly. So let me jump to slide 14. Strike
`that. I don't mean 14. I think it is 15.
`So here's the construction. And as we explained in our papers, we
`didn't think the construction is right. But regardless, we think we satisfy.
`And one of the reasons is that the ’827 patent discloses several
`embodiments, one of which is known as a NAS fabric implementation.
`And in fact, it's that embodiment which is the one which specifically
`requires the location information that the claims were amended to include to
`get the case allowed in the first place.
`So we feel that the claim must cover that embodiment. We know
`through the Federal Circuit that they state that the claim construction should
`cover preferred embodiments. It's rarely, if ever, correct to exclude
`preferred embodiments.
`We think in this context, particularly in the case of the claim
`amendments, it certainly should be covering storage fabric implementations
`under any construction and --
`JUDGE BRADEN: Do you agree, however, that there's Federal
`Circuit case law that says not every claim must cover every embodiment?
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`
`MR. DICHIARA: That's correct, Your Honor. And I think that's
`actually captured in the Federal Circuit cases that I'm talking about.
`They don't say that there aren't exceptions. But you're going to
`have to really sort of show. As a guiding principal, you're trying to cover
`all of the embodiments and then try and explain away why something
`shouldn't be covered.
`So back to OceanStore on this. OceanStore -- I'm going to flip to a
`figure that's showing this well. If we go to slide 10. Michael, can you
`jump to 10 quickly, quicker than I can?
`What OceanStore has is -- I'm using the same color convention that
`we used for the ’827 patent. Its user devices connect to this ocean of
`storage. That's what you're seeing on the left. And on the right, you're
`seeing more detail about the way OceanStore is actually constructed.
`This is one of the figures showing one of the ways that data is
`located within this vast ocean of storage.
`And what they have are these various nodes -- N1, N2, N3 -- and
`each of those nodes is making its storage available to network-connected
`users.
`
`And turning to slide 12, this is from the patent owner response. I
`don't think there's anything controversial here. It's consistent with
`statements we've made. It's consistent with statements that the Board has
`made and the Decision Institute.
`NAS device in the patent is used broadly to refer to a device that's
`making its storage resources available to network-connected users.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`
`And that's precisely what you're seeing in slide 10. The nodes, their
`storage is available to the network-connected users.
`And consistent with slide 15, if we can jump, it's a situation in which
`a device is just like the patent, that distributed OceanStore devices are
`working cooperatively as NAS devices to form a storage fabric.
`OceanStore doesn't use the word "fabric". They use the word
`"ocean". But it's the same thing.
`So under any of the constructions, any possible construction that's
`going to be consistent with the notion that the claim should cover the
`embodiments which actually have location information, we feel OceanStore
`satisfies.
`JUDGE BRADEN: Okay. I want to make sure I understand
`figure 2 that you are discussing from OceanStore.
`The N1, N2, each of the nodes, those are separate nodes, correct?
`MR. DICHIARA: Right. They call them nodes or pool devices.
`JUDGE BRADEN: Yes, and are each of those nodes represented in
`OceanStore?
`MR. DICHIARA: Yes.
`JUDGE BRADEN: As a NAS?
`MR. DICHIARA: Yes, Your Honor, in multiple ways.
`The first way is just consistent with the terminology in slide 12. It's
`making its data storage resources available to network-connected users.
`That's one way.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`
`Another way, if I may, let me jump to this slide right here. This is
`something that --
`JUDGE BRADEN: Which slide is that?
`MR. DICHIARA: I'm sorry, slide 14. I apologize, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BRADEN: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. DICHIARA: And this concerned one of the other reasons
`why we had an issue with their claim construction. But let me just focus on
`the lower blurb.
`This is right out of OceanStore. It's something that The Decision
`Institute discussed at page 14.
`In fact, the patent owner response, when it was just providing an
`overview of OceanStore, referred to it. And what goes on is that
`OceanStore works in this two-step approach.
`The first step is find the data. It could be any place in the ocean.
`You might be traveling from California to Washington D.C. If your data
`was still near California, OceanStore is going to find where the data exists.
`That's what goes on in the first phase.
`And the figure that we were just talking about, figure 2, is one of the
`ways. There's another figure, figure 3, which is another way where it
`finds the data.
`But once that data is found, OceanStore says, at that point, then you
`can route your messages directly to the destination.
`So if we go back to slide -- if I remember correctly -- 10, in this
`instance, N3 is holding the data.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`
`So first, it's found. N3 raises its hand. It says, I have the data.
`And then the user can communicate directly to N3 and say, I would like that
`object.
`
`There's no reason for it to use the resources of all the other nodes
`that were used in the finding step. You can route your messages directly.
`And again, this is something The Decision Institute said. This is
`something that the patent owner said when they were overviewing
`OceanStore. Perhaps they didn't realize it.
`But what this means is that user devices directly contact the nodes
`that actually hold the data. That's what is meant on slide 15 when it says
`that you can route the messages directly to the destination once they've been
`identified as such.
`JUDGE BRADEN: All right. Thank you, counselor.
`MR. DICHIARA: Given the time and to save time for my
`colleague, are there any other questions in OceanStore that you would like
`me to address at this point? If not, I'll save the time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE BRADEN: No, I think we understand your position. So
`we will note this time for your rebuttal. Thank you.
`MR. DICHIARA: Okay. So at this point, I'm just going to hand
`the baton to Mr. Smith who will present on Carter.
`MR. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I will be presenting
`on Carter which is the primary reference for the 439 IPR. And I've now
`gone to slide 28 which is the first slide for our Carter presentation.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`14
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`
`Like OceanStore and like the ’827 patent, Carter describes a system
`where you have a series of devices, of PCs that mimic NAS devices by
`making their storage resources available.
`What I'd like to do is provide a brief overview of Carter and then I'll
`get into the issues. But obviously, let me know if you have questions or
`would like me to jump to anything before then.
`So what I'm showing here on slide 29 is figure 1 from Carter. And
`we're using the same color coding that we've used earlier to annotate the
`system.
`So what you see is, in this case, it's showing four PCs. Though,
`obviously, there could be more in the system, each of them has a software
`component on it called a shared memory subsystem.
`So you can see all four of the devices each have their own software
`component. And what that software component does is it allows each PC
`to represent or mimic that it's a NAS device.
`So what we see in this example is the PC shown in green in the
`bottom right corner representing that it's a NAS device and making its
`storage available. And we see the PC in the top left corner annotated in red
`accessing that storage.
`So in this way, we have a collection of devices that each represent
`that they're NAS devices.
`Figure 11, which is another figure we discussed in our petition,
`shows another example of this process and shows it in a little bit more detail.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`
`So here we're focusing just on two devices, and I've now moved on
`to slide 30.
`So what we see here on the left -- again, it's a device shown in green
`-- that is going to make it storage available to other devices in the system
`and in that way, represent or mimic a NAS device and a device, shown on
`the right in red, that will access that storage.
`And in this example, it's going to access the memory pitch 5 that's
`stored on the device on the left. And this also illustrates the location
`information shown in blue that's used to map to the location of that
`information on the device.
`So again, this shows just one device that's mimicking a NAS device,
`and you have other devices throughout the system that are doing the same.
`So you have multiple NAS devices.
`A second --
`JUDGE BRADEN: But I understand patent owner's arguments to
`be that Carter only has a single shared space, not individual NAS devices.
`MR. SMITH: I believe that is patent owner's argument, and that
`argument is incorrect. And it's incorrect for several reasons.
`So first is just on the substance. It's incorrect because, as we were
`talking about earlier, the parties agree that a NAS device is a device that
`makes its storage resources available to other computers.
`And if we go back to slide 30, that's exactly what these devices are
`doing. So each device in the system is mimicking or representing a NAS
`device by making its storage resources available.
`
`16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: And is each one of these devices visible to a
`user on the system?
`MR. SMITH: So each of these devices, it is visible to a user on the
`system. And it is visible to a user on the system because it needs to
`represent to the system and to the software that runs on each of the user
`devices that it has storage available.
`And likewise when the users access the storage, they need to be able
`to follow through with the location information in order to access the data.
`JUDGE BRADEN: So I want to make sure I understand your
`position. So the whole visible to a user -- I believe that is the language
`used by -- let me get patent owner's proposed construction -- to cause each
`selected distributed device to separately appear to network-connected user
`devices as a dedicated NAS device.
`So the argument from petitioner is that as long as it's something that
`a user device can detect there is open space, then it is visible to the user
`device, correct?
`MR. SMITH: So our position is that -- well, so first off, I'll just
`note that so you did read their construction. What they have argued in their
`papers is that there is only a single NAS device, and they didn't specifically
`address how Carter appears to the individual users.
`But to get to your question, our position is that Carter does satisfy,
`even under their construction, because each of the devices in Carter will
`represent to the system and to the other devices that it has storage resources
`available.
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: Very good. Thank you, counselor.
`MR. SMITH: So then just briefly going to slide 31, and this, I
`think, goes to a second point that not only does the system substantively
`have multiple NAS devices, that each represent that they have storage, but it
`also -- just like the NAS fabric in the 827 patent, the devices can cooperate.
`And they can cooperate in a few different ways.
`One way is to mimic what Carter refers to as virtual drives. So you
`can have multiple devices that will appear as the F: drive or the N: drive.
`So this is a second way in which they mimic multiple NAS devices.
`And then they also aggregate their storage just like the NAS fabric. So
`again, this is a point of similarity with the 827 patent.
`The patent owner, in their patent owner response, and we point this
`out in our reply, selectively quotes some of the language where we talk
`about the aggregate and refer to that as a NAS device.
`And as you'll see in the paper, those are taken out of context.
`Those are just showing the similarity with the NAS fabric and don't take
`away from the fact that each of the individual devices is still mimicking or
`representing a NAS device by making its storage available.
`So here, we have the five issues that the patent owner has raised in
`their patent owner response. We've covered the representing limitation.
`Are there other issues that the Board would like me to address during
`our time for Carter?
`JUDGE BRADEN: You have five minutes left until you start
`eating into your rebuttal time. But if you have time, briefly address the
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`assessing and the storage priority control. And I believe assessing is in
`claim 1 and 13 and storage priority control in dependent claims 9 and 21.
`MR. SMITH: Yes, so just to briefly touch on each of those. So
`now going to slide 40.
`So one of the things we talked about in our papers is that assessing
`and allocating are both basic memory functions when -- and that predate the
`’827 patent by decades.
`So when a device, whether it's a local storage or distributed storage
`wants to make memory available, it needs to assess what storage is available
`and then allocate that storage.
`In the ’827 patent, the claim itself doesn't say anything about how to
`assess. And Dr. Shenoy, going to slide 41, also admitted that the
`specification doesn't say anything about it.
`So in that context, going to slide 42, we have in Carter a very
`straightforward disclosure of assessing and allocating.
`So here, we see, first, you're going to determine the availability of
`resources such as hard disk space. So you're going to assess what resources
`are available, and then you will -- and in that sentence -- distribute those
`resources or allocate them. And the Board correctly recognized in its
`institution decision that Carter satisfies this.
`During the deposition, we asked Dr. Shenoy about this. We believe
`this is sufficient, so we asked a series of questions to just evaluate the weight
`that should be given his opinion and on slides 43 and 44, identified
`additional examples where he admitted that, on slide 43, Carter was
`
`19
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`determining the free space available for allocation, slide 44, requesting the
`total available space. So we think this is more than sufficient to disclose
`assessing.
`Unless the Board has any questions, I'll move to the priority control.
`So now moving to slide 55, here we just are showing the storage
`priority control limitation.
`Moving to slide 56, Carter discloses storage priority control in
`several ways.
`One of them is it does hierarchical data management. It also
`performs load balancing and data distribution. And all of these memory
`management functions involve assessing priority.
`So you need to determine which devices are going to prioritize
`storing data on, which devices are not, whether you're going to store data
`closer to certain devices or father away, whether you're going to prioritize
`keeping space available on certain devices.
`The patent owner, in response, has argued that the claim has
`additional requirements. They say it requires things like privileges or other
`conditions and ranks privileges and priorities.
`That language doesn't appear in the claims or the patent, so we think
`that's incorrect. But regardless, the type of data management functions in
`Carter, such as the hierarchical data management and the load balancing, as
`Dr. Shenoy explains, those would involve looking at ranks, positions,
`privileges.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`20
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`
`So again, to decide how to distribute the data within the data
`hierarchy, you need to set priorities and you need to look at how you're
`ranking the data, whether there are privileges involved with which devices
`are allowed to store data.
`So we think this satisfies either under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation or under the construction the patent owner has proposed.
`JUDGE BRADEN: Very good, counselor. Thank you, and I
`believe that you are just about out of time.
`MR. SMITH: Okay. I will reserve our remaining time for
`rebuttal. Thank you.
`JUDGE BRADEN: Thank you, counselor. Patent owner,
`whenever you are ready.
`MR. BLOCK: May it please the Board, my name is Daniel Block.
`As I mentioned earlier, I'm from the law firm of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein
`and Fox. And I'm here on behalf of patent owner, Intellectual Ventures.
`So I was going to start today talking about the allocating limitation,
`but I know that there's been a lot of discussion about representing.
`So I thought it would make sense to start there, and I'm turning now
`to slide 17 of the 374 slides. And this just shows claim 1 from the ’827
`patent.
`
`And as was discussed earlier, the claim requires representing that the
`selected distributed devices respectively -- i.e. each -- comprise NAS
`devices having an available amount of storage.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Cases IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439
`Patent 8,275,827 B2
`
`
`And there's been a lot of discussion today about whether or not
`OceanStore or whether or not Carter discloses this representation of each of
`the NAS devices.
`But I think there hasn't been a lot of discussion about the remaining
`part of that limitation, which is that it's not just that OceanStore or Carter
`need to represent that they are NAS devices. They need to represent that
`these NAS devices have an available amount of storage resources.
`And it's important to remember that there's no dispute among the
`parties -- and I'm turning now to 374, slide 19. There's no dispute between
`the parties that the claims require at least two NAS devices.
`So putting the two together, the claims require representing that
`there's at least two NAS devices that each have an available amount of
`storage resources.
`And the problem is that if we turn to OceanStore -- and I'm turning
`now to patent owner's slide 18 of the 374 proceeding. OceanStore just has
`a single device that's represented to the users.
`In other words, the way that OceanStore works is you connect to the
`OceanStore system and you just store data in the system in sort of this
`massive cloud of data.
`There's not two NAS devices. There's not even one
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
