Docket No.: 01001 57.00270USl
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`PATENT:
`
`8,275,827
`
`INVENTORS: EDWARD A. HUBBARD
`
`FILED:
`
`APRIL 13, 2001
`
`ISSUED:
`
`SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
`
`TITLE:
`
`SOFTWARE-BASED NETWORK ATTACHED STORAGE
`
`SERVICES HOSTED ON MASSIVELY DISTRIBUTED
`
`PARALLEL COMPUTING NETWORKS
`
`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 IPR2017-003 74
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,275,827
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`PATENT:
`
`8,275,827
`
`INVENTORS: EDWARD A. HUBBARD
`
`FILED:
`
`APRIL 13, 2001
`
`ISSUED:
`
`SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
`
`TITLE:
`
`SOFTWARE-BASED NETWORK ATTACHED STORAGE
`
`SERVICES HOSTED ON MASSIVELY DISTRIBUTED
`
`PARALLEL COMPUTING NETWORKS
`
`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 IPR2017-003 74
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,275,827
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`.
`
`..
`
`II. Mandatory
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`C. Counsel................
`
`D. Service .
`
`III. Certification of Grounds for
`
`IV. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested
`
`A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications................................................
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the
`
`C. ReliefRequested
`
`V. Overview ofthe ’827
`
`A. Purported Invention ofthe ’827
`
`B.
`
`Summary ofthe Prosecution
`
`VI. Claim
`
`..
`
`.
`
`.
`
`'_'_*553555asC>Oo0U1U:U1-I>-l>bJu.>L;JL»Jl\)l\)l\)>—*
`
`..
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“NAS device” (claims 1,
`
`“representing with the corresponding software-based NAS component that
`the selected distributed devices respectively comprise NAS devices”
`(claims 1 and 13
`
`11
`
`VII.
`
`GROUNDS FOR
`
`12
`
`A. Overview ofPriorArt 14
`
`P0
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 3-9, 13, and 15-21 are anticipated by OceanStore
`
`19
`
`C. Ground 2: Claims 1, 3-9, 13, and 15-21 are obvious in View of OceanStore
`
`D. Ground 3: Claims 4, 6-7, 16, and 18-19 would have been obvious over
`OceanStore in viewof 48
`
`VIII.
`
`54
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,275,827 (“the ’827 patent,” Ex. 1001) concerns software-
`
`based network attached storage services hosted on a massively distributed network.
`
`(Ex. 1002, 1121.) In short, a set of distributed devices determines the amount of
`
`unused or under-utilized storage on the devices. The devices then “represent”
`
`themselves (through software) as network-attached storage devices having such
`
`unused storage resources available for use by other devices connected to the
`
`- network. (Ex. 1002, 111123, 34.) In this way, the system may take advantage of
`
`these otherwise unused storage resources.
`
`The claims stood rejected for many years, until they were narrowed to
`
`require that at least one of the distributed devices be enabled to function as a so-
`
`called “location distributed device” to store location information associated with
`
`data stored on the devices.
`
`However, the concept of using otherwise idle storage resources in a network
`
`to store data was old, as was the idea of having devices store location information
`
`associated with the data. For example, “OceanStore” (Ex. 1003), published in
`
`2000 by a group of researchers from the University of California, Berkeley,
`
`concerned an “architecture for global-scale persistent storage.” Like the ’827
`
`patent, OceanStore had a set of widely-distributed devices, which made their
`
`excess storage capacity available for use by other devices, through OceanStore
`
`
`
`U.S.-Patent 8,275,827
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`software, allowing that excess storage to be used by other devices connected to the
`
`network. (Ex. 1003, p. 191-192.) (Ex. 1002, 111169, 73.) Moreover, it included
`
`three separate mechanisms which enabled a distributed device to store location
`
`information associated. with data stored on the distributed devices.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest
`
`EMC Corporation (“EMC”), Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Lenovo”), and
`
`NetApp, Inc. (“NetApp”) (collectively “Petitioners”) are the real parties in interest.
`
`Lenovo Group Ltd., LenovoEMC Products USA, LLC, Dell Inc., Denali
`
`Intermediate Inc., and Dell Technologies Inc. may also be considered real parties
`
`in interest.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The ’827 patent is assigned to Intellectual Ventures I LLC and has been
`
`asserted twice: On May 10, 2016, Intellectual Ventures sued EMC Corp.
`
`(Petitioner), Lenovo (United States) Inc. (Petitioner), Lenovo Group Ltd., and
`
`LenovoEMC Products USA, LLC in the District of Massachusetts. Intellectual
`
`Ventures [LLC et al. v. Lenovo Group Ltd, et al. (l:l6—cv-lO860—lT). On May 11,
`
`2016, Intellectual Ventures sued NetApp, Inc. (Petitioner) in the District of
`
`Massachusetts. Intellectual Ventures 1, LLC et al. v. NetApp, Inc. (1 :16—cv-10868-
`
`IT).
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`C.
`
`Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`Peter M. Dichiara (Registration No. 38,005).
`
`Backup Counsel: Brian M. Seeve (Registration No. 71,721); Christopher
`
`Centurelli (Registration No. 44,599); Benjamin Weed (Registration No. 65,939);
`
`Thomas A. Brown (Registration No. 54,619); Cynthia D. Vreeland (pro hac vice to
`
`be requested).
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`E-mail: peter.dichiara@wilmerhale.com; brian.seeve@wil1nerha1e.com;
`
`christopher.centurelli@klgates.com; benjamin.weed.ptab@klgates.com.
`
`Post and Hand Delivery: WilmerHale, 60 State St., Boston MA 02109
`
`Telephone: 617-526-6000
`
`Petitioner consents to service by email.
`
`III". CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the ’827 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds
`
`identified in this Petition.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(l)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1, 3-9, 13, and 15-21 of the ’827 Patent (the “challenged claims”) and
`
`requests that each challenged claim be canceled.
`
`
`
`US Patent 8,275,827
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`Petitioner relies upon the patents and printed publications listed in the Table
`
`of Exhibits, including:
`
`1. Kubiatowicz, John et al., “OceanStore: An Architecture for Global-Scale
`
`Persistent Storage,” stamped November 20, 2000 by the University of
`
`Michigan, and appearing in ASPLOS-IX proceedings: Ninth International
`
`Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and
`
`Operating Systems, Cambridge, Mass., Nov. 12-15, 2000 (pp. 190-201)
`
`(“OceanStore,” Ex. 1003).
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The ’827 patent relates to the field of distributed processing. At the time
`
`the ’827 patent was filed, a person of ordinary skill in this field would have had at
`
`least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering and 3-5
`
`years of professional experience in computer systems design, or a master’s or
`
`doctorate and 1-2 years of professional experience in computer systems design, or
`
`equivalent academic experience. Such a person would have been familiar with
`
`computer systems architecture and design, and would have been aware of design
`
`trends relating to distributed processing systems.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`C.
`
`Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cancel the
`
`challenged claims because they are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
`
`as set forth in this Petition. This conclusion is supported by the declaration of Dr.
`
`John D. Kubiatowicz, Ph.D. (“Kubiatowicz Declaration,” Ex. 1002), filed herewith.
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’827 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Purported Invention of the ’827 Patent
`
`The ’827 patent describes systems and methods for software-based network
`
`attached storage (NAS) services hosted on a massively-distributed network of
`
`devices. (Ex. 1001, Title, Abstract.) (Ex. 1002, 1121.)
`
`The background observes that, while ordinary desktop computers often sit
`
`idle for long periods of time, these computers have the same specifications (e. g., a
`
`Pentium processor, a hard drive, and an Ethernet connection) and often greater
`
`functional capabilities than dedicated NAS devices. (Ex. 1001, 2:46-55.) (Ex.
`
`1002, 1122.) The ’827 patent proposes making these otherwise unused storage
`
`resources may be made available to other devices connected to the network. (Ex.
`
`1001, 2:66-3:1, 42:36-41.) (Ex. 1002,1123.)
`
`As will be clear from the description below, the ’827 claims focus on subject
`
`matter added to the specification when the ’827 application was filed (as a
`
`continuation-in-part application) on April 13, 2001. (Ex. 1002, 1124.) In particular,
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the applicant added new Figure 21, which provides “a distributed processing
`
`system that provides network attached storage (NAS) services, according to the
`
`present invention.” (Ex. 1001, 42:29-32.) (Ex. 1002, 1124.)
`
`I" " '_ — — fl
`
`£2102
`
`152A
`
`1
`
`I
`
`2”;
`
`DATABASE
`
`SYST M
`I540 U559
`SERVER
`sySTEMS
`
`2'00
`
`[
`
`I0
`
`4
`
`HA5
`SERVER
`SYSTEMS
`
`I
`1
`
`'02
`
`1
`
`¥
`
`
`
`I I I I I
`
`1 n
`
`I523
`1
`|
`‘
`_
`,
`
`951..-1:5
`
`1
`L - - — - —
`
`2105
`
`NAS
`DATABASE
`SYSTEMS
`2: no
`csummzao
`DATA LOCATION
`LIBRARY
`
`' """" " " ‘ " " 7
`ms
`t
`nus
`was
`CLIENT
`. . . CLIENT
`1
`ELIEHT
`name:
`name:
`1
`DEVICE
`noec
`1
`IoeA
`ZIOSA
`I
`r‘
`OATA
`am».
`I
`.
`LOCATION
`1 Laurie»
`1
`LIBRARY
`,
`Lrananr
`m_“____-___-_nm_J
`
`noes
`2,068
`
`2:04
`
`I.
`
`’827 Patent, FIG. 21
`
`(Ex. 1001, FIG. 21 (annotated).)
`
`The entirety of this new disclosure is found at col. 42:29-46:10. (Ex. 1002,
`
`1124.) The specification states that in Figure 21, “the NAS embodiment 2100”
`
`includes a network 102 that connects user devices (depicted in red), and NAS
`
`client devices (depicted in green). (Ex. 1001, 4326-11.) (Ex. 1002, 1125.) Each of
`
`the distributed NAS client devices 108A, 108B, and 108C runs a client agent (not
`
`shown) to provide NAS functionality. (Ex. 1001, 43:26-30.) (Ex. 1002, 1125.)
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Each of the user devices 152A, 152B, and 152C can then use the “software-based
`
`NAS resources” provided by the distributed computing system. (Ex. l00l , 44:60-
`
`65.) (Ex. 1002, 1125.)
`
`The client devices 108A, 108B, and 108C are each configured to “mimic”
`
`dedicated NAS devices, even though “the software-based NAS devices 108A,
`
`108B
`
`108C are actually non-dedicated devices that rely on spare and/or unused
`
`capabilities ofthe existing devices to provide NAS services.” (Ex. 1001, 43:47-56;
`
`see also 44:30-32 and 5:64—6:2 (These devices can be personal computers systems
`
`(PCs), internet appliances, notebook computers, servers and the like.) (Ex. 1002,
`
`1126.) Some of the distributed devices providing software-based NAS services can
`
`provide “both storage and data location functionality, thereby acting both to
`
`provide data storage services and distributed data location services.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`44:9-12.) (Ex. 1002, 1127.) For example, the data location libraries 2106 (depicted
`
`in blue in Fig. 21) may provide links or directories to where desired data is stored
`
`among the NAS client devices. (Ex. 1001, 43:59-62, 44:1-3.) (Ex. 1002, 1127.)
`
`The NAS client devices can also be combined with NAS server systems 104 which
`
`may include a file storage database system 2108 and a centralized data location
`
`library 2110, which can provide services for the “files and other data being stored
`on the multitude of software-based NAS devices.” (Ex. 1001, 44:27-37.) (Ex.
`
`1002,1128.)
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`The ’827 patent issued from U.S. Patent Appl. No. 09/834,785, which was
`
`filed on April 13, 2001.
`
`It is a child of fourteen prior continuations—in-part. (See
`
`Ex1001.)
`
`The application initially sought claims directed to “configuring a client agent
`
`program to have a software-based NAS component and to take advantage of
`
`unused or under-utilized resources of a plurality of network-connected distributed
`
`devices put into operation for purposes distinct from operating the client agent
`
`program to provide NAS services.” (Ex. 1004, claim 1.) (Ex. 1002,1137.) The
`
`applicant pointed to pages 59-65 of the specification describing Figure 21 for the
`
`support. (Ex. 1005, p. 9; Ex. 1006.) (Ex. 1002,1137.)
`
`The Patent Office properly recognized that this subject matter was not
`
`patentable, and rejected these claims and various versions thereof eight times.
`
`(Exs. 1007-1014.) (Ex. 1002,1138.)
`
`Duringhprosecution, the applicant confirmed that “[s]ince the client agent
`
`programs configure the devices to mimic NAS devices by relying on spare and/or
`
`unused capabilities of the existing devices, then it follows that the client agent
`
`programs must be capable of assessing what capabilities are spare and/or unused
`
`(unused or under utilized).” (Ex. 1015, p. 8 (emphasis in original).) Pointing to
`
`Figure 21 and the specification (page 61, lines 13-21), the applicant asserted that
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`“even though the word ‘assess’ was not specifically recited in this passage, it
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the client agent
`
`programs must assess unused or under utilized capabilities for it to be able to
`
`configure the devices to mimic stand-alone NAS devices using their spare and/or
`
`unused capabilities.” (Ex. 1015, p. 8; see also Ex. 1006, p. 61.)
`
`The independent claims stood rejected until the applicant narrowed them to
`
`require at least one ofthe distributed devices to be enabled to function as a
`
`“location distributed device to store location information associated with data
`
`stored by the selected distributed devices through use of the respective client
`
`agents for the particular distributed device.” (Ex. 1016, p. 4.)
`
`In View of the above, the claims are entitled to a priority date no earlier than
`the filing date ofApril 13, 2001. (Ex. 1002, 1141.) First, the claims explicitly refer
`
`to a “location distributed device,” the subject matter of which was added with the
`
`April 2001 filing.‘ Second, the file history pointed to new Figure 21 for support.
`
`I See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 1141 in which Dr. Kubiatowicz confirms none of the preceding
`
`filings contained the claimed subject matter. By wayof representative example
`
`and focusing on the four separate filing dates for the prior 14 filings, a March 30,
`
`2000 application (e.g., 09/53 8,542, now USPN 6,654,783) contained disclosure
`
`through Figure 8; a June 23, 2000 application (e.g., 09/602,789, now USPN
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(Ex. 1002, 1141.) Third, the Office Actions referred to “mimicking” and the
`
`“location distributed device” both of which were new to the April 2001 filing. (Ex.
`
`1002, 1141.) Accordingly, the claims are entitled to a priority date no earlier than
`
`the filing date of April 13, 2001. (Ex. 1002, 1141.)
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In IPR proceedings, claims are given their “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b.) Terms not specifically
`
`discussed in this section should have their ordinary and customary meaning in light
`
`of the specification, as commonly understood by those of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`A.
`
`“NAS device” (claims 1, 13)
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “NAS device,” in the context of
`
`the ’827 specification, is “a device that makes data storage resources available to
`
`network—connected user devices.” (Ex. 1002, fil43.)
`
`7,020,678) added disclosures through Figure 15; the August 25, 2000 application
`
`(09/648,832, now USPN 6,847,995) added disclosures through Figure 18b; and the
`
`February 27, 2001 application (09/794,969) added disclosures through Figure 20.
`
`It was not until April 13, 2001 filing that the disclosure of figure 21 and its
`
`description were added.
`
`10
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The ’827 specification states: “As used herein, the term ‘NAS device’
`
`broadly refers to a device that makes data storage resources available to network-
`
`connected user devices.” (Ex. 1001, 2:31-34.) (Ex. 1002, 1144.)
`
`B.
`
`“representing with the corresponding software-based NAS
`component that the selected distributed devices respectively
`comprise NAS devices” (claims 1 and 13 )
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of “representing with the
`
`corresponding software-based NAS component that the selected distributed
`
`devices respectively comprise NAS devices,” in the context of the 7827 patent
`
`specification, is “using the corresponding software-based NAS components of the
`
`selected distributed devices to mimic dedicated NAS devices.” (EX. 1002, 1145.)
`
`The ’827 specification states that “standard NAS device functionality
`
`provided by typical dedicated NAS devices [is] accomplished according to the
`
`present invention by utilizing unused or under-utilized resources on network-
`
`connected devices through capabilities provided by the client agent running on
`
`those devices.” (Ex. 1001, 42:36-41; see also 43:53-56 (“software-based NAS
`
`devices 108A, 108B 108C are actually non-dedicated devices that rely on spare
`
`and/or unused capabilities of the existing devices to provide NAS services.”).)
`
`(Ex. 1002, 1146.)
`
`Moreover, these “NAS client devices 108A, 108B
`
`108C,” run “client
`
`agents which make them capable of mimicking dedicated NAS devices.” (Ex.
`
`11
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1001, 44:29:32 (emphasis added).) (Ex. 1002, 1l47.) “For example, a large number
`
`of desktop PCs in the enterprise (Intranet) or on the Internet can each act as a NAS
`
`device by running a client agent program and NAS component that brings its
`
`resources to the network with the appearance ofa dedicated NAS device or as part
`
`of an integrated system that appears as a single or dedicated NAS device.” (Ex.
`
`1001, 42:59-65 (emphasis added).)2 (Ex. 1002,1147.)
`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE
`
`This Petition, supported by the Declaration of Dr. John D. Kubiatowicz filed
`
`herewith, demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim and that each of the challenged
`
`claims is not patentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 3l4(a.)
`
`Dr. Kubiatowicz is the first author on the OceanStore paper, and a Full
`
`Professor of Computer Science at University of California at Berkeley, where his
`
`research specialties include Intemet-scale distributed storage systems, data caching
`
`2 See also Ex. 1015, p. 8 (“Since the client agent programs configure the devices to
`
`mimic NAS devices by relying on spare and/or unused capabilities of the existing
`
`devices, then it follows that the client agent programs must be capable of assessing
`
`9 what capabilities are spare and/or unused (unused or under utilized).” (underline
`
`emphasis in original; italics emphasis added)).
`
`12
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`Petition for Inter Partes Review '
`
`and cache coherence, parallel operating systems, multiprocessor computer
`
`architecture, chip design, reconfigurable computing, and quantum computing. (Ex.
`
`1002, M4, 5, 8.) He is a member of many professional organizations, including the
`IEEE, ACM, and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS),
`
`and has published over 85 papers in peer—reViewed journals, conferences, and
`
`workshops. (Ex. 1002, 119.) Dr. Kubiatowicz is ‘well known in the field of
`
`distributed peer-to-peer storage systems as a result of OceanStore, a research
`
`project that explored mechanisms for providing secure access to storage on
`
`disparate computers spread around the Internet. (Ex. 1002, fl8.) As a result of his
`
`research, he was selected as a top—50 researcher and policy maker by Scientific
`
`American in 2002 and as a “person to watch” by US News & World—Report in
`
`2004. (Ex. 1002, 118.) As further explained in his declaration, Dr. Kubiatowicz is
`
`an expert in the field of distributed storage systems, and has particular knowledge
`
`of the technologies most relevant to the ’827 patent. (Ex. .1002, fi[8.)
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), specific grounds for finding the
`
`challenged claims invalid are identified below and discussed in the Kubiatowicz
`
`Declaration.
`
`13
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A.
`
`Overview of Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`Background
`
`As explained above, the ’827 patent concerns networked distributed devices,
`
`which determine the amount of their unused or under—utilized storage, and which
`
`represent themselves as NAS devices having such unused storage available for use
`
`by other devices connected to the network. (Ex. 1002, 1150.) However, there was
`
`absolutely nothing new about either this general idea or the specific techniques
`
`used in the ’827 patent. (Ex. 1002, 1150.) As described below, multiple references
`
`— including at least Condor, Chien, and Plank — disclosed key concepts of the
`
`alleged invention. This Petition focuses on one such reference, OceanStore, that
`
`anticipates all of the claims. As Dr. Kubiatowicz explains, this is just one of the
`
`references describing the claimed technology well before the ’827 patent.
`
`For example, researchers at the University of Wisconsin had developed a
`
`system called Condor — famous for its approach of making otherwise unused,
`
`networked computer resources available for use by other network devices — at least
`
`by 1987. (Ex. 1017.) (Ex. 1002,1159.) As one ofthe papers on this system
`
`explained:
`
`In most cases,
`
`the resources of the workstation are under utilized.
`
`The processing demands of the owner are much smaller than the
`
`capacity of the workstation he/she owns. However, very often some
`
`of the users face the problem that the capacity of their workstations is
`
`14
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`much too small to meet their processing demands. These users would
`
`like to take advantage of any available capacity they can access that
`
`can support their needs.
`
`(Ex. 1017, p. 1 (emphasis added).) (Ex. 1002,1159.)
`
`In short, with Condor, network devices could ‘‘volunteer’’ their unused
`
`capacity to other devices connected to the network when the Volunteer computers
`
`were otherwise idle. (Ex. 1017, p. 2 (“The Condor system schedules long running
`
`background jobs at idle workstations.”).) (Ex. 1002, 1159.) Figure 1 depicts the
`
`“Condor Scheduling Structure” in which a “central coordinator allocates capacity
`
`from idle workstations to local schedulers on workstations that have background
`
`jobs waiting.” (Ex. 1017, p. 6.) (Ex. 1002, 1160.)
`
`
`
`n
`
`¢
`
`a
`
`¢
`
`|
`
`-I
`
`-I
`
`|
`
`I
`
`|
`
`o
`
`n
`
`1-
`
`1-
`
`Scheduler
`.. E
`
`Local
`
`Figure 1: The Condor Scheduling Structure.
`
`Condor, Fig. 1
`(Ex. 1017, Fig. 1.)
`
`15
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`To do this, the volunteer computers needed to assess not only their extra
`
`CPU capacity, but also their unused disk space to confirm they had sufficient
`
`storage resources to store the corresponding check point files. (Ex. 1017, p. 13 (“A
`
`user has to devote some local capacity to support the placement and checkpointing
`
`of remote jobs and the execution of system calls.”). (Ex. 1002, 1161.) Condor also
`
`states:
`
`The implementation of the Condor
`
`system brought a clearer
`
`understanding of several issues. Many of these issues relate to the
`
`nature of background jobs and the large amount of memory needed
`
`for their remote execution. For example, if a job is to be executed
`
`remotely,
`
`it must be placed on the remote station ’s disk. Because
`
`users of workstations often do little to manage their own disk space,
`
`users let their disk become full. When a disk is full, a remote job
`
`cannot be placed on the workstation for remote execution. Even if a
`
`workstation is idle so that its processor is available for executing
`
`remote jobs, the disk might be full so that no remote job can execute
`there.
`The coordinator must know not only which workstation
`
`processor is available, but must know how much disk space is
`
`available on each workstation.
`
`(Ex. 1017, p. 16 (emphasis added).) (Ex. 1002, 1161.)
`
`Another group of researchers from the University of Illinois proposed a
`
`similar concept for making unused storage resources available to others in 1999.
`
`16
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1018.) (Ex. 1002, 1163.) For example, in Chapter 17 of the book “The Grid,
`
`Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure,” (1999) Andrew Chien wrote:
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`“The rapid decrease in the cost of storage has significant implications
`for computational grids. Not only do technology improvements make
`
`it possible and cost-effective to store large quantities of data, but the
`
`exploding storage capability in lowest-cost systems dictates that huge
`
`of amounts of storage will be available on networks of any size, and
`
`the improving capabilities of high—speed networks will enable grids to
`
`use that storage flexibly. For example,
`
`in our local‘ PC-based
`
`instructional laboratory at the University ofIllinois, the file server is
`
`configured with 16 GB of disk. However, the 100 desktop machines
`
`associated with that server contain a far larger quantity—over 120.0
`
`GB.”
`
`(Ex. 1018, p. 432-433 (emphasis added).) (Ex. 1002, 1163.)
`
`Researchers at the University of Tennessee, including James Plank, also
`
`proposed an intemet-based storage system they described as an “Intemet
`
`Backplane Protocol” for controlling storage that is implemented as part of the
`network fabric itself. (Ex. 1019, Abstract.) (Ex. 1002, 1164.) Using the Internet
`
`Backbone Protocol (IBP), “client calls may be made by anyone who can attach to
`
`an IBP server.” (Ex. 1019, Section 2, p. 3.) (Ex. 1002, 1164.) These “lBP servers”
`
`(also called “IBP depots”) “require only storage and networking resources,” and
`
`“may be restricted to use only idle physical memory and disk resources.” (Ex.
`
`1019, Section 2, p. 3 (emphasis added).) (Ex. 1002, 1164.)
`
`17
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Consequently, the idea of computers having software based components to
`
`assess their unused computer resources, including storage resources, predates the
`
`’827 by well more than a decade.3
`
`Though any of the above references could have been used to challenge the
`
`claims, the current Petition relies on OceanStore (Ex. 1003) because it is
`
`particularly on point both in structure and purpose. OceanStore was an
`
`architecture for g1obal—scale persistent storage. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. John
`
`Kubiatowicz, had significant involvement in architecting it. (Ex. 1002, f[65.)
`
`3 Compare (Ex. 1001, 2:50-56 (“Considering the specifications of an
`average corporate desktop computer, the capabilities ofthese desktop computers
`
`often exceed the capabilities [of] computers being sold as dedicated NAS devices,
`
`and these desktop computers ofien sit idle for significant amounts of time each
`
`day.”) with Ex. 1017 (Condor), p. 1 (“users would like to take advantage of any
`
`available capacity” from “resources of the workstation[s] [that] are under utilized”)
`
`with Ex. 1003 (OceanStore), p. 191 (“In a time when desktop workstations
`
`routinely ship with tens of gigabytes of spinning storage, the management of data
`
`is far more expensive than the storage media. OceanStore hopes to take advantage
`
`of this excess of storage space to make the management of data seamless and
`
`carefree”)
`
`18
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 3-9, 13, and 15-21 are anticipated by
`OceanStore
`
`OceanStore is a publication and prior art to the ’827 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ l02(a) for the ’827 patent’s proper priority date of April 13, 2001.
`
`It published
`
`in the Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Architectural Support
`
`for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS IX) in November
`
`2000. (Ex. 1003.) (Ex. 1002, 1166.) It was not. considered by the Patent Office
`
`during prosecution of the ’827 patent. (Ex. 1001.)
`
`As its title suggests, OceanStore concerned “an architecture for global-scale
`
`persistent storage.” (Ex. 1003, Title.) (Ex. 1002, 1169.) Similarly to Chien and
`
`other researchers described above (and well before the ’827 patent), OceanStore
`
`sought to take advantage of the excess, or unused, storage resources on desktop
`
`workstations and the like:
`
`In a time when desktop workstations routinely ship with tens of
`
`gigabytes of spinning storage, the management of data is far more
`
`expensive than the storage media.
`
`OceanStore hopes to take
`
`advantage of this excess ofstorage space to make the management of
`
`data seamless and carefree.
`
`(Ex. 1003, p. 191 (emphasis added).) (Ex. 1002, 1169.)
`
`OceanStore was designed to span the globe and to offer “uniform and highly
`
`available access to information” through widely dispersed servers (a.k.a. nodes,
`
`pool devices, caches). (Ex. 1003, Abstract, p. 190.) (Ex. 1002, 1173.) It envisioned
`
`19
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`providing service to 10 billion users, with millions of entities providing storage.
`
`(Ex. 1003, pp. 190,198 (“Oceanstore will consist of millions of servers with
`
`varying connectivity, disk capacity, and computational power.”).) (Ex. 1002, 1173.)
`
`Consumers would pay a monthly fee for storage services, for example, while
`
`storage providers could buy and sell capacity amongst themselves. (Ex. 1003, p.
`
`190 (“We envision a cooperative utility in which consumers pay a monthly fee in
`
`exchange for access to persistent storage.”).) (Ex. 1002, 1173.) Though a user
`
`would pay her fee to a “utility provider,” the user could actually consume storage
`
`resources from many different providers, i.e., the owners of the entities actually
`
`providing the storage services. (Ex. 1003, pp. 190-191) (Ex. 1002, 1173.)
`
`Figure 1 of OceanStore is reproduced below, and shows that user devices
`
`could come in many forms, including desktop computers, PDAS and phones. (Ex.
`
`1003, p. 191 .) (Ex. 1002, 1174.) As shown, 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. (Ex. 1003, p. 191.) (Ex. 1002, 1174.)
`
`20
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Figure 1: The 0ceanStore system. The core of the system is
`composed of a multitude of highly connected “pools”, among
`which data is allowed to “flow” freely. Clients connect to one or
`more pools, perhaps intermittently.
`
`OceanStore, Fig. 1
`(Ex. 1003, Fig. 1 (annotated).)
`
`OceanStore provided “facades” to its underlying application programming
`
`interface (API). (Ex. 1003, p. 197.) (Ex. 1002, W5.) As it explains, a“facade is
`
`an interface to the [OceanStore] API that provides a traditional, familiar interface.”
`
`(Ex. l003, p. 197.) (Ex. 1002, W5.) For example, “legacy facades
`
`implement
`
`common APIs, including a Unix file system, a transactional database, and a
`
`gateway to the World Wide Web.” (Ex. 1003, p. 198.) (Ex. 1002,1175.)
`
`OceanStore’s fundamental unit of information was a “persistent object,”
`
`which could contain not only data but also “pointers” to other objects or names of
`
`21
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`other objects, thus representing directories or local name spaces. (Ex. 1003, pp.
`
`191-192 (“Certain OceanStore objects act as directories,
`
`we allow directories to
`
`contain pointers to other directories.”).) (Ex. 1002, 1176.) These objects were also
`
`referred to as “floating replicas,” to indicate that “[a] given replica is independent
`
`of the server on which it resides at any one time” and indeed could move among
`
`servers, for example, to be positioned closer to the user to improve performance.
`
`(Ex. 1003, p. 191; see also p. 198 (“Replica management adjusts
`
`the location of
`
`floating replicas in order to service access requests more efficiently.”).) (Ex. 1002,
`
`1176.)
`
`Each floating replica was assigned a “globally unique identifier (GUID)”
`
`"which identified the object and could be used to access the object. (Ex. 1003, p.
`
`191-192.) (Ex. 1002, 1176.) GUIDS were used to support “location-independent
`
`addressing,” which “tackles the problem of data location head-on.” (Ex. 1003, p.
`
`193.) (Ex. 1002,1177.)
`
`22
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,275,827
`
`Petition for Inter. Partes Review
`
`In short, a user would connect to a nearby OceanStore server4, or pool
`
`device, as depicted in Figure 1 via dashed lines. (Ex. 1002, 1l77.) That user could
`
`then read or update objects using a GUID to identify the relevant object being
`
`requested or updated. (Ex. 1002, 1177.) That object however could, in theory, be
`
`any place in the network, and need not be (though preferentially is) on the server or
`
`pool device that the user connected to. (Ex. 1002, 1177.) As a result, OceanStore
`
`provided data location algorithms to locate the relevant object. (Ex. 1002, .1177.)
`
`As Dr. Kubiatowicz explains, at a high level, each of
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
