Docket No.: 0100157-00270US2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`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. IPR2017-00439
`Patent No. 8,275,827
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`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. IPR2017-00439
`Patent No. 8,275,827
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Carter Discloses Claims 1 and 13 .................................................................... 2
`A.
`Carter Discloses the “Assess[ing]” Limitation ..................................... 2
`B.
`Carter Discloses the “Allocat[ing]” Limitation..................................... 6
`C.
`Carter Discloses the “Representing” Limitation ................................... 8
`1.
`IV Attempts To Artificially Narrow The Claims ....................... 8
`2.
`Carter Teaches The “Representing” Limitation Even
`Under IV’s Narrow Reading ..................................................... 14
`IV’s Argument That Carter Presents Only A Single Large
`Device Is Not True .................................................................... 18
`III. Carter Teaches The Centralized Server Limitation (claims 4 and 16) .......... 20
`A.
`IV Premises Its Argument On An Artificially Narrow Reading
`Of The Claims ..................................................................................... 21
`Carter Discloses The “Centralized Server” Limitation Even
`Under This Narrow Reading ............................................................... 23
`Carter Does Not Teach Away From Centralization ............................ 24
`C.
`IV. Carter Teaches The Storage Priority Control Limitations (claims 9 and
`21) .................................................................................................................. 25
`Level of Skill ................................................................................................. 28
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”) confirms that the challenged ’827 claims
`
`are invalid. As the Petition explained, the ’827 patent claims old and obvious
`
`distributed storage systems, in which 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 over ten 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 Carter satisfied in multiple ways.
`
`In its POR, Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures (“IV”) does not (and cannot)
`
`dispute that “location information” was well known. Instead, it 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 claim in its Decision to Institute (“DI”), and should do so again
`
`here. See DI, 25.
`
`IV’s other attempts to distinguish Carter rely on old, obvious, basic features
`
`that are not even discussed in the ’827 patent. IV’s attempts to narrow the claims
`
`based on features not even discussed in the specification also should be rejected.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`
`II. CARTER DISCLOSES CLAIMS 1 AND 13
`IV disputes the same three limitations it challenged in its Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response (“POPR”): “assessing,” “allocating,” and “representing.”
`
`POR, 19, 24, 30; compare with POPR, 12, 18, 21. The Board properly rejected
`
`these arguments in its DI, and should do so again.
`
`A. Carter Discloses the “Assess[ing]” Limitation
`As the Petition explained and the Board preliminarily agreed, Carter
`
`discloses “assess[ing] unused or under-utilized storage resources.” Pet., 38-39; Ex.
`
`1102, ¶¶117-118; DI, 22. For example, Carter teaches “determin[ing] the
`
`availability of resources such as … hard-disk, available RAM and other
`
`resources,” plainly conveying that Carter is assessing whether hard disk resources
`
`are available, i.e., unused or under-utilized. DI, 22 (quoting Ex. 1140 (“Carter”),
`
`36:27-29).1 Carter also discloses “suitable heuristics” to distribute resources that
`
`are assessed. DI, 22 (quoting Carter, 36:29-37:2).
`
`IV repeats its POPR arguments (much of them nearly verbatim), which the
`
`Board should reject again. POR, 19-30; compare with POPR, 12-17.
`
`
`
` 1
`
` All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`First, the POR largely sidesteps, and therefore presents no rebuttal to,
`
`Carter’s disclosure relied upon by the Board – “determin[ing] the availability of
`
`resources such as ... hard-disk, available RAM and other resources.” Carter,
`
`36:27-29; DI, 22; see POR, 19-29.
`
`Instead, IV focuses its criticism on Carter’s related disclosure of
`
`“dynamically distribut[ing] the available resources,” and argues “Carter does not
`
`disclose what ‘heuristics’ are used.” POR 25-27, 29. This complaint demands
`
`more disclosure in Carter than is provided in the ’827 specification and is
`
`misplaced. The claims merely require “assessing” and do not require any
`
`particular “heuristics;” nor does the specification provide any detail on how to
`
`“assess unused or under-utilized storage resources.” Ex. 1144 (“Shenoy Dep.”),
`
`81:9-11, 82:12-14. Indeed, during prosecution, applicants admitted that the ’827
`
`patent lacked any description of “assessing,” yet argued this was entirely
`
`appropriate because “client agent programs must be capable of assessing what
`
`capabilities are spare and/or unused.” Pet., 8 (citing Ex. 1115, 8) (emphasis
`
`omitted). Ex. 1145, ¶¶8-11.
`
`Second, IV’s argument ignores not only the plain disclosure which the
`
`Board relied upon for “assessing,” but also Carter’s multitude of other disclosures,
`
`clearly showing the “assessing” of unused or under-utilized storage. Ex. 1145,
`
`¶12.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`For example, Dr. Shenoy admitted Carter discloses “determin[ing] the free
`
`volume space available for allocation,” making clear Carter assesses (i.e.,
`
`determines) unused or under-utilized (i.e., free volume) space for the specific
`
`purpose of allocation. Shenoy Dep., 142:19-20 (referencing Carter, 19:14-17). He
`
`further admitted that Carter discloses “request[ing] the total available space
`
`information and us[ing] this information to quickly determine whether to proceed
`
`with the allocation processing.” Id., 142:14-17, 143:16-17. Ex. 1145, ¶13.
`
`Third, IV’s argument concerning Carter’s “private memory” is similarly
`
`flawed. The Petition showed an additional way Carter discloses the “assessing”
`
`limitation—by distinguishing between private memory reserved for a node’s own
`
`use and non-private memory available for other nodes to use. Pet., 38; Ex. 1102,
`
`¶117. IV argues Carter does not describe this functionality in sufficient detail.
`
`POR, 14, 20-23. This argument is not only factually wrong, but misses the point
`
`entirely. Carter reserves specific memory for local use, and assesses and makes
`
`available other specific memory (non-private) for other network-connected users.
`
`E.g., Carter, 28:19-29:20 (contrasting “private memory” that provides “local
`
`storage that can be kept inaccessible to the other nodes” and “virtual shared
`
`memory” that “map[s] to devices that provide physical storage”). This approach
`
`parallels the ’827 patent’s assessment and allocation of sub-system components.
`
`Ex. 1101 (“’827 patent”), 12:26-31 (“The capability allocation may also be a
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`system-wide (i.e., course) allocation . . . The capabilities allocation may also be
`
`sub-system specific (i.e., fine) allocation, such as allocation of particular
`
`subsystem capabilities to particular affiliations.”). Ex. 1145, ¶14.
`
`Finally, IV also makes multiple attempts to improperly impose a
`
`“necessarily present” inherency standard. POR, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29.2 This is
`
`irrelevant where, as here, Carter expressly discloses the relevant limitation in at
`
`least as much detail as the patent. Ex. 1145, ¶15. Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti Inc.,
`
`878 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[A] reference can anticipate a claim even if
`
`it does not expressly spell out all the limitations arranged or combined as in the
`
`claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’
`
`the claimed arrangement or combination.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); In
`
`re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (C.C.P.A. 1968) (“[I]n considering the disclosure of a
`
`reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the
`
`reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
`
`expected to draw therefrom.”).
`
`
`
` 2
`
` IV makes similar inherency arguments for other limitations. These arguments
`
`should be rejected for the same reason.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`B. Carter Discloses the “Allocat[ing]” Limitation
`As the Petition showed and the Board preliminarily agreed, Carter also
`
`discloses the “allocating” limitation—namely, it allocates the storage it has
`
`assessed as unused or under-utilized and thus available for other devices on the
`
`network to use. E.g., Pet., 19-21, 37-43, 54; DI, 27. For example, Carter teaches
`
`“dynamically distribut[ing] available resources.” DI, 27 (citing Pet., 39 (citing
`
`Carter, 36:29-37:2), 54); see also, e.g., Pet., 20 (quoting Carter, 9:18-21).
`
`IV’s attempts to distinguish Carter are, once again, inconsistent both with
`
`the ’827 patent and with IV’s own expert.
`
`First, IV again demands more disclosure from Carter than is present in the
`
`’827 specification, this time complaining “Carter does not explicitly disclose
`
`reserving or ‘locking down’ resources as part of its policy controller’s distribution
`
`of resources to make the[m] ‘exclusively available’ to Carter’s shared memory
`
`subsystem.” POR, 38. However, nothing in the challenged claims requires
`
`locking down resources. Shenoy Dep., 83:7-8 (“The claim just talks about allocate
`
`respective amounts, and that's all it says”). Nor does the ’827 specification
`
`disclose it. In fact, Dr. Shenoy was unable to identify any description of
`
`“allocating” in the ’827 specification, let alone any locking resources. Id., 83:10-
`
`18. Ex. 1145, ¶18.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`Moreover, IV is wrong to state Carter does not lock down, or reserve,
`
`storage resources. Dr. Shenoy admitted Carter discloses “reserving something
`
`much larger than requested memory space for a file.” Shenoy Dep., 133:20-134:2
`
`(referencing Carter, 19:14-17). Ex. 1145, ¶19.
`
`Second, like the situation with “assess,” cross-examination corroborated that
`
`Carter discloses “allocating” a multitude of times, undermining IV’s denials. For
`
`example, Dr. Shenoy admitted that Carter discloses “allocating the first available
`
`free space on that page.” Shenoy Dep., 127:7-8 (referencing Carter, 16:21-23).
`
`And that Carter discloses “data streams are mapped onto allocated pages.” Id.,
`
`128:6-7 (referencing Carter, 17:17-20). Dr. Shenoy further admitted that Carter
`
`teaches when a file is deleted, “all shared memory space allocated to the files in
`
`the fileset is discarded.” Id., 135:5-17 (referencing Carter, 15:9-11). Moreover, he
`
`confirmed that “allocate” has the same meaning when used in Carter as it has in the
`
`’827 patent. Id., 124:3-6. Ex. 1145, ¶20.
`
`Finally, Dr. Kubiatowicz also confirms that both assessing and allocating
`
`are old, well-known and basic functions and would not require significant
`
`description, a fact consistent with the ’827 patent specification’s utter lack of
`
`description for either function. Ex. 1145, ¶21. See Microsoft, 878 F.3d at 1068
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Preda, 401 F.2d at 826 (C.C.P.A. 1968).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`C. Carter Discloses the “Representing” Limitation
`Carter’s software causes nodes (e.g., commercially available PCs) to
`
`represent, or mimic, dedicated NAS devices. Pet., 26-27; Ex. 1102, ¶¶47-48, 88-
`
`90. The parties agree that the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) of “NAS
`
`device,” as used in the ʼ827 specification, would at least include “a device that
`
`makes data storage resources available to network-connected user devices.” Pet., 9-
`
`10; POR, 6-7; see also ’827 patent, 2:31-34. The PC nodes in Carter represent, or
`
`mimic, NAS devices by making their storage available to other nodes using
`
`software modules called shared memory subsystems that run on each PC node.
`
`Pet., 37-43; Ex. 1102, ¶¶114-125.
`
`IV premises its argument that Carter does not teach this limitation on an
`
`artificially narrow reading of the claims the Board should reject. Moreover, even if
`
`IV’s reading of the claim were correct, Carter still teaches the limitation because
`
`each of the PC nodes in Carter mimics a dedicated NAS devices by making
`
`storage available to other nodes.
`
`1.
`IV Attempts To Artificially Narrow The Claims
` IV recycles the same argument previously rejected by the Board in the form
`
`of a claim construction. The POPR argued that Carter did not disclose the
`
`“representing” limitation because “the NAS component must represent that each
`
`distributed device includes its own NAS device.” POPR, 19. Likewise, the POR
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`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
`
`as a dedicated NAS device.” POR, 7. The Board should reject this construction
`
`for at least three reasons.3
`
`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).
`
`
`
` 3
`
` For efficiency, Petitioners have included this substantively identical claim
`
`construction argument in its Replies in IPR2017-00374 and IPR2017-00439.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`For example, in connection with Figure 21,4 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
`
`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
`
`
`
` 4
`
` 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., 5-9; POR, 1-4.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`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-
`
`alone” embodiments where “each” distributed device acts as a “separate” NAS
`
`device that in no way cooperates with other mimicked NAS devices.5
`
`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,
`
`
`
` 5
`
` 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”).
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`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
`
`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. 1145, ¶28.
`
`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 IV’s
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`construction to the extent it implies claim 1 is limited to stand-alone
`
`configurations. Anchor Wall, 340 F.3d at 1308.6
`
`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,
`
`10. 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
`
`
`
` 6
`
` IV also argues that the agreed interpretation of “NAS device” somehow compels
`
`its construction of the “representing” limitation. POR, 8-9. 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.”
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`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, 40:3-9.7
`
`For at least these reasons, IV’s construction is inconsistent with the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the claims.
`
`2.
`
`Carter Teaches The “Representing” Limitation Even Under
`IV’s Narrow Reading
`Even if IV’s reading of the claims were correct, which it is not, Carter would
`
`still teach the “representing” limitation. IV’s argument that Carter does not
`
`disclose representing that its PC nodes comprise “respective (i.e., separate), NAS
`
`devices” (POR, 30-31) fails for at least the following reasons.
`
`First¸ IV’s argument is wrong because each separate PC node in Carter’s
`
`system is made to mimic a dedicated “NAS device” by making data storage
`
`resources available to network-connected user devices. As the Petition explained,
`
`
`
` 7
`
` 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, ¶45 with POPR, 6.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`Carter’s Figure 11 shows multiple commercially available PC nodes (406a and
`
`406b) each mimicking NAS devices by making storage available:
`
`
`
`Pet., 26; Ex. 1102, ¶86; Carter, 25:14-16, 41:25-29; Shenoy Dep., 177:14-20. The
`
`Petition further explained that “virtual page 5 is stored on node 406a, which, in this
`
`instance, represents itself as a ‘NAS device’ that ‘makes data storage resources
`
`available to network-connected user devices.’” Pet., 27; Ex. 1102, ¶¶47-48, 88-90;
`
`Carter, 41:25-29. Similarly, node 406b acts as a NAS device by making storage
`
`resources available, such as virtual page 2. IV’s own expert Dr. Shenoy does not
`
`dispute this. Shenoy Dep., 155:15-19. Moreover, both parties agree that the BRI
`
`of “NAS device” includes “a device that makes data storage resources available to
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`network-connected user devices.” POR, 6-7. Thus, each separate node in Carter’s
`
`system is made to mimic a dedicated “NAS device.” Ex. 1145, ¶33.
`
`As the Petition also explained, Carter’s “shared memory subsystem” is the
`
`software-based NAS component on each node that cooperates with “shared
`
`memory subsystems” on other nodes to make physical storage available. Pet., 22-
`
`23, 31-32; Ex. 1102, ¶¶79-80, 98-100. Thus, contrary to IV’s assertion, Carter
`
`does not merely disclose a “‘shared memory subsystem’ … [that] appears as a
`
`single shared resource across all of Carter’s nodes.” POR, 30. Instead, it discloses
`
`a shared memory subsystem on each node that allows the node to mimic a
`
`dedicated NAS device by making its storage available to other nodes. Pet., 37-40;
`
`Ex. 1102, ¶¶114-122. Ex. 1145, ¶34.
`
`For example, Carter discloses with reference to Fig. 1 (below) that “[e]ach
`
`of the nodes 12a-12d can access the addressable shared memory space 20 through
`
`the shared memory subsystems 34a-34d.” Carter, 10:30-11:2, Fig. 1; Pet., 22, 31;
`
`Ex. 1102, ¶¶79, 100.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`
`
`
`IV admits that “nodes 12a-12d … each hav[e] a respective shared memory
`
`subsystem 34a-34d.” POR, 18. Thus, Carter plainly discloses each separate node
`
`(e.g., 12a-d) having its own shared memory subsystem (e.g., 34a-d) to represent, or
`
`mimic, a dedicated NAS device. Ex. 1145, ¶35.
`
`Second, the cooperation between the “shared memory subsystems” on
`
`Carter’s nodes is a point of similarity with the ’827 patent, not a distinction. This
`
`cooperation corresponds, for example, to the ’827 patent’s second architecture,
`
`referred to as a storage fabric. ’827 patent, 43:1-5. In this arrangement, each
`
`distributed device acts as a NAS device. However, rather than act as a “stand-
`
`alone” device (i.e., as taught in the first architecture), each distributed device
`
`works “cooperatively” with other “NAS devices” (by means of the recited location
`
`information, absent in the first architecture). Indeed, the ’827 patent was explicit
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`that a “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.” ’827 patent, 42:66-43:3. Ex. 1145, ¶36.
`
`3.
`
`IV’s Argument That Carter Presents Only A Single Large
`Device Is Not True
`Finally, IV suggests that Petitioner and Dr. Kubiatowicz agreed with its
`
`stretched interpretation of Carter as having only a single NAS device. POR, 32-34.
`
`Once again, IV is wrong.
`
`First, contrary to IV’s assertions, the Petition makes clear from the first page
`
`that Carter discloses multiple NAS devices: “Carter had a set of widely distributed
`
`devices, which made their excess storage capacity available for use by other
`
`devices, through Carter software, allowing that excess storage capacity to be used
`
`by other devices connected to the network.” Pet., 1-2. The Petition again explains
`
`in the overview of Carter: “The unused storage space attached to each computer in
`
`the system is pooled and managed by the software taught by Carter so that it may
`
`be available for use and access by any node.” Pet., 21; Ex. 1102, ¶75.
`
`As explained above, Carter discloses each computer mimicking a NAS
`
`device by making its storage available, plainly satisfying all proposed
`
`constructions of the “representing” limitation, and plainly disclosing multiple NAS
`
`devices. Supra, §II.C.2. The Petition and Dr. Kubiatowicz also explain how the
`
`“filesets” in Carter’s Fig. 2 disclose multiple NAS devices because they appear to
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`users as separate drives, such as “F:” and “N:” drives. Pet., 29-30; Ex. 1102, ¶¶94-
`
`97.)
`
`Second, IV mischaracterizes the Petition. IV points to certain statements in
`
`the Petition referring to a “single large device,” even adding “[NAS]” in brackets
`
`in one place where the Petition refers to “a device.” POR, 32. But if anything,
`
`IV’s selective quoting of the Petition illustrates the immense overlap in teachings
`
`between Carter and the ’827 patent’s NAS fabric, just like the cooperation between
`
`the “shared memory subsystems” discussed in the previously section. Supra,
`
`§II.C.2. Ex. 1145, ¶41.
`
`Third, IV similarly misrepresents Dr. Kubiatowicz’s deposition testimony.
`
`POR, 33-34. IV cites Dr. Kubiatowicz’s testimony that “in the aggregate, one
`
`Carter instance is a single NAS device” out of context and implies this was an
`
`admission that Carter discloses only a single NAS device. POR, 33 (quoting Ex.
`
`2002 (“Kubiatowicz Dep.”), 79:16-19). However, the quote is clearly referring to
`
`“one Carter instance” not all instances. And once again, this one Carter instance
`
`illustrates the extreme overlap with the ’827 patent. ’827 patent, 42:63-65 (“[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 appears of a dedicated NAS device or
`
`as part of an integrated system that appears as a single or dedicated NAS device.”)
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`IV ignores Dr. Kubiatowicz’s other testimony where he explained that each
`
`individual node mimics a NAS device which can be combined and cooperate with
`
`other NAS devices as part of an aggregate: “What I point out here in my analysis is
`
`that each device mimics a NAS device and can be combined together in an
`
`aggregate.” Kubiatowicz Dep., 77:18-23. Additionally, Dr. Kubiatowicz made
`
`clear that Carter discloses there can be multiple aggregate Carter instances.
`
`Kubiatowicz Dep., 78:8-79:3; 80:25-81:5. Ex. 1145, ¶42.
`
`Thus, there can be no fair dispute that Carter discloses multiple NAS
`
`devices.
`
`III. CARTER TEACHES THE CENTRALIZED SERVER LIMITATION
`(CLAIMS 4 AND 16)
`As the Petition showed and the Board preliminarily agreed, Carter discloses
`
`a “centralized server” that stores its root directory page 342 and a “centralized
`
`server” that stores its root entry point 64. Pet., 49-51; Ex. 1102, ¶139-144; DI, 29-
`
`30.
`
`Once again, IV premises its argument that Carter does not teach this
`
`limitation on an artificially narrow reading of the claims the Board should reject.
`
`Moreover, even if IV’s reading of the claim were correct, Carter teaches the
`
`limitation even under IV’s construction.
`
`20
`
`
`
`A.
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`IV Premises Its Argument On An Artificially Narrow Reading Of
`The Claims
`Although IV has never formally identified “centralized server” for
`
`construction, IV argues that the claimed centralized server must “form[] a known,
`
`physical ‘center’ from the perspective of the distributed devices,” POR, 41, and
`
`that it “must be physically separate from the client devices (claimed ‘distributed
`
`devices’) that it serves.” POR, 42. IV’s proposal is not BRI. Instead, IV is
`
`improperly reading limitations into the claims, and doing so inconsistently and
`
`selectively—a fact made abundantly evident by its proposing two different
`
`constructions, one here, and one in related IPR, IPR2017-00374, where IV argues
`
`the term the “centralized server” must be “a single server or a single group of
`
`servers that are commonly controlled and managed.” IPR2017-00374 POR, 29-
`
`30.8
`
`
`
` 8
`
` IV does not dispute that Carter discloses the “centralized server” under its
`
`proposed construction in IPR2017-00374. For example, Carter discloses the
`
`computers (including the computer storing the root directory page) could be
`
`located on a local area network, which a POSITA would have understood
`
`encompasses an office network with commonly owned computers. Carter,
`
`Abstract; Shenoy Dep., 179:22-180:21 (agreeing).
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`There is no basis in the specification for any of these requirements IV
`
`attempts to read into the claims. IV argues the claims require a “physically
`
`separate” centralized server, but neither the claims nor the specification contain
`
`such a requirement. The claims simply recite a “centralized server.” The claims
`
`do not require that it is “physically separate,” nor do they connote anything
`
`physical at all. Instead, the claims and specification both use the term in
`
`connection with functionality. For example, claim 4 refers to managing the NAS
`
`service for at least one distributed device at least in part using a centralized server.
`
`The specification in turn refers to central functions such as “receiv[ing] storage and
`
`access requests from user devices and would at least in part direct the user devices
`
`to the distributed devices storing the requested data.” ’827 patent, 44:38-41. Ex.
`
`1145, ¶47.
`
`IV also appears to equate the claimed “centralized server” with the ’827
`
`patent’s NAS server systems 104. POR, 43. But notably, the patent’s description
`
`of such systems simply refers to a “typical” case: “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 user.” ’827 patent, 44:47-54. Thus, the specification expressly
`
`acknowledges that NAS server systems 104 are not limited to physically separate
`
`devices. Ex. 1145, ¶48.
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00439
`U.S. Patent No. 8,275,827
`B. Carter Discloses The “Centralized Server” Limitation Even
`Under This Narrow Reading
`Moreover, even if IV’s artificially narrow reading were adopted, which it
`
`should not be,
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
