UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC. and EMC CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 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
`__________
`
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC. and EMC CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 5, 2018
`__________
`
`
`
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and DANIEL
`J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`CHRISTOPHER CENTURELLI, ESQ.
`K&L Gates, LLP
`One Lincoln Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02111
`(617) 526-6466
`christopher.centurelli@klgates.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`BYRON L. PICKARD, ESQ.
`Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`bpickard@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, March 5,
`
`2018, commencing at 2:45 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`2:44 p.m.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Good afternoon. This is Judge Galligan and
`with me is Judge Braden, and in front of you in the room there is Judge
`Smith.
`
`And this is an oral hearing for IPR 2017-00477. Lenovo (United
`States) Inc. and EMC Corporation are the petitioners. Intellectual Ventures I
`LLC is the patent owner. This involves Patent No. 8,387,132.
` Now we have appearances for petitioner and patent owner. And
`when you speak, make sure the mic is on.
`MR. CENTURELLI: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Can you hear
`
`me?
`
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Yes.
`MR. CENTURELLI: Chris Centurelli on behalf of petitioners. With
`me is Erik Halverson.
`MR. PICKARD: Good afternoon. On behalf of the patent owner,
`Intellectual Ventures, it's Byron Pickard from the Sterne Kessler law firm.
`Joined with me at counsel table is Lestin Kenton, also from Sterne Kessler,
`as well as in-house counsel from Intellectual Ventures, Tim Seeley and
`James Hietala.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Great. Thank you very much. So as the oral
`hearing order in this case stated, the parties will each have 30 minutes to
`present. So it's, well, a total of 60 minutes for argument time.
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`The petitioner has the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability
`of the claims. Claims 1 and 9 are at issue in this review of the ’132 patent.
`And so petitioner will go first. Petitioner may reserve time in rebuttal.
`Because Judges Braden and I are here, we appreciate it if you would
`identify a particular page for the record. Or demonstratives currently before
`you, reference them. We have all the record and everything, so we just need
`you to just point us to them.
`And I think that's all. With that, petitioner, you're welcome to begin.
`MR. CENTURELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. My name is Chris
`Centurelli. I'm counsel for petitioners. I'd like to reserve 15 minutes for
`rebuttal.
`There are two questions before the Board today.
`First, does the prior art Cramer patent anticipate claim 1 and 9 of the
`132 patent?
`And second, does Cramer, in combination with the prior Banga
`patent, render claims 1 and 9 obvious?
`The primary dispute here today is what does Cramer reasonably
`disclose? There are no claim constructions before the Board.
`Petitioners submit there's ample evidence in the record defining
`Cramer reasonably renders claims 1 and 9 unpatentable. This is because
`Cramer and the ’132 patent propose the same solution to the same problem,
`namely --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Counsel, I'm interested in particular on where
`-- and because we have an anticipation ground with respect to Cramer and
`then we also have the Cramer-Banga obviousness case.
`Where does Cramer expressly disclose two volumes that are mapped
`to a single network interface or a single network adapter common frame
`address? Where does it disclose that?
`MR. CENTURELLI: Certainly, Your Honor. Petitioners submit --
`well, first of all, as background, Cramer is talking about filers that typically
`serve 150 or more volumes. And that's in the background section,
`specifically column 2, about lines 17 through 21. Okay? So --
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Right. And I know they're in multiple
`volumes and I know that they're -- I'm just curious about the express
`disclosure of a many-to-one relationship. I'll just call it many-to-one or a
`two-to-one even --
`MR. CENTURELLI: Yes, so --
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: -- relationship of a filer -- of volumes to a
`common frame address.
`MR. CENTURELLI: Yes, Your Honor. Good question. So the
`context of Cramer is this concept of a filer that can handle 150 volumes.
`Okay? And there's no disclosure of 150 NICs, right? We're talking one,
`two, or three NICs. Okay?
` And then you go to figure 1, right? And figure 1 is a block diagram
`of an exemplary network environment. Okay? So this is a block diagram of
`--
`
`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
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BRADEN: We are talking about figure 1 of Cramer,
`correct?
`MR. CENTURELLI: Figure 1 of Cramer, Exhibit 1005.
`JUDGE BRADEN: Okay.
`MR. CENTURELLI: Okay? And so what figure 1 shows -- okay,
`let me get to a slide that has it on there. Okay.
`So petitioner slide 6, okay, is an annotated version. It shows figures
`1 and figures 2 next to each other. On the left-hand side is figure 1.
`And what you'll see is you'll see a LAN network 102 connected to
`two filers: filer 1 which is 110 and filer 2 which is 12. Okay?
`Both filer 1 and filer 2 have one line going into them from a LAN.
`Then you'll see filer 1 and filer 2 connected to switching network 120 and
`below that you have four volumes, right? So you have four volumes 122.
`And what Cramer teaches is those volumes can become IP volumes
`when filer 1 or filer 2 assigns an IP address to it. And that's the process it
`goes through in figure 4. Okay?
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: It can't -- I suppose it can do that in figure 6.
`It actually shows one IP volume it looks like being assigned to two frame
`addresses. That's a one-to-many relationship, I guess I would say.
`Is there any -- and so any express disclosure of -- I know that there's
`a mention of 150 volumes. And I know you said that there aren't 150 NIC --
`network interface cards. There could be multiple network interface cards,
`right, as disclosed.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`MR. CENTURELLI: Your Honor, there could be embodiments with
`multiple NICs. But in figure 1, you have a filer 1 that's then described in
`figure 2. Okay? The filer in figure 2 has one network adapter. Okay? So
`you have four volumes going to two filers in figure 1, both having one line
`going to them.
`So in that description of figure 1, you have, at most, two NICs and
`you have four volumes. Okay? So in that situation on figure 1, that
`expressly discloses the person skilled in the art you have multiple volumes
`sharing one NIC.
`And if you contrast that with, for example, figure 5 -- which I
`apologize. I don't have a slide of figure 5. When the applicant wanted to
`show multiple connections to multiple NICs, they would show multiple lines
`going into the filer. Okay? So embodiments where they're talking about
`more than one NIC on a filer, they have multiple lines going into it.
`In embodiments, for example, like in figure 2 which is also shown in
`figure 1, you have one line in it. So if you have four volumes going --
`JUDGE BRADEN: So you're saying that this block diagram is more
`than just a block diagram, that it actually shows all of the interfaces, all of
`the lines going into and out of each component?
`MR. CENTURELLI: That's a reasonable way to read figure 1, yes,
`Your Honor.
`JUDGE BRADEN: So it's more than just a block diagram --
`MR. CENTURELLI: So it's --
`JUDGE BRADEN: -- is what you're saying?
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`MR. CENTURELLI: -- an exemplary illustration of the invention.
`And the illustration they're providing is you have one connection between
`filer 1 in a LAN and one connection between filer 2 in a LAN. And it goes
`in the network adapter 226.
`And so what's then showing is the possibility of one connection
`meeting one NIC meeting one MAC address serving multiple volumes.
`That's consistent with other spots in the specification.
`So for example, in the bottom of column 5, about line 66 through the
`top of column 6 ending about line 3, it's talking about these exemplary file
`servers serving storage volumes, plural. Okay?
`If you go to column 11 where it's discussing figure 9, in figure 9, you
`have two filers shown. One filer 110 that has one network interface card and
`another filer 2 that happens to have two network interface cards connecting
`again to the LAN network. You're talking about it serving volumes, plural.
`So in any case where there's more than one volume being served by
`filer 1, you have two volumes sharing a single NIC that has a single MAC
`address.
`And that is the evidence that petitioners put forth in Dr. Karlin's
`declaration for his interpretation of showing multiple volumes being handled
`by one NIC and has one MAC address.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. CENTURELLI: So if we go back to Cramer and the ’132
`patent. In order to get their patent allowed -- and this is discussed in the
`opening petition at pages 15 to 16. In the prosecution history, how
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`applicants characterize their invention is they were the first people to
`propose assigning an IP address to a storage volume to ease the management
`of network-based communications for those volumes.
`And that is exactly what Cramer proposes, and Cramer proposes it
`first. But let's just begin with an overview of the ’132 patent.
`So in the parlance of the ’132 patent, the ’132 patent proposes
`assigning what it calls host addresses to a logical construct it calls a virtual
`object.
`
`The purpose of assigning the host address is so that remote network
`devices can more easily interact with the virtual objects by directing packets
`over the network to the host address as opposed to the physical MAC
`address.
`Importantly, the ’132 patent provides that a host address may be an
`IP address, that the virtual object may be a storage volume, that the network
`client packet may be read-write requests. And these disclosures are
`important because this is exactly what Cramer teaches. Those map directly
`under the teachings of Cramer.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: You have about five minutes of your first 15
`
`left.
`
`MR. CENTURELLI: Yes, Your Honor. To implement its virtual
`objects, the ’132 patent describes a module. That module includes a packet
`processor, and a packet processor performs the logic of those operations.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`The operations it performs are assigning the host address -- for
`example, the IP address -- to the virtual object and that's what creates the
`virtual object.
`And then managing communications with those objects by receiving
`packets, transforming to receive packets and device level requests, and
`issuing the device level requests. And that's shown on petitioner's slide 3.
`Slide 4 --
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: And I also wanted to ask you about --
`MR. CENTURELLI: Sure.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: -- the -- and I don't mean to interrupt and it's
`your record. I would like you to comment on the reason to combine and
`Patent Owner's arguments that the petitioner has not put forth sufficient
`rationale to combine Cramer and Banga in the manner asserted. Thank you.
`MR. CENTURELLI: Certainly, Your Honor. The motivation to
`combine Cramer and Banga to the extent the Board was to believe that
`Cramer doesn't sufficiently teach a single NIC handling multiple IP volumes
`is, first, sharing resources was known.
`The concept of sharing network resources -- for example, in NIC --
`was known. And the reason behind it is to save money.
`Patent owner's expert, Dr. Shenoy, admitted that saving -- sharing
`resources was a known motivation prior to these two references coming out.
`And the two reference that we have, Cramer and Banga, they're from
`the same applicants, NetApp. The same examiner reviewed them. They had
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`the same operating system that they're discussing as running their various
`embodiments.
`So the idea of taking the virtual objects in Cramer, the IP volumes,
`and using them in the same manner that the virtual filers were used in Banga
`in order to share the system resources of a single NIC is a short hop.
`And that's the motivation to combine, again, is that so you don't have
`to have 150 NICs, which I'm not aware of any evidence of any sort of having
`150 NICs to service your typical filer.
`And I know that faced with that motivation to combine, the patent
`owner presented no objective evidence of nonobviousness. They just say
`that sharing is not enough. We submit sharing is more than enough, this
`concept of sharing resources in a network.
`So there are three points that are up for discussion today.
`The first is whether Cramer teaches a, first, virtual object. We
`submit that the record is ample that Cramer's IP volumes constitute that
`virtual object.
`Cramer's IP volumes are logical partitions. They may be RAID
`arrays. They may be implemented in hardware or software, and they
`aggregate groups of disks in order to provide storage to the clients.
`The second point at issue is, does Cramer teach two IP volumes that
`have different host address? We believe Cramer clearly teaches that.
`It talks about directing input and output packages to IP volumes
`based upon the IP address. There's no other addressing scheme provided. In
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`order to direct something to an IP address, those IP addresses need to be
`unique.
`And then the last point is a point we discussed earlier which is
`sharing common frame addresses. If you have two volumes at a single filer
`and that single filer has a single NIC, then they share a common frame
`address. And we believe that's all taught by Cramer.
`The Banga point -- the Banga reference, we brought in as an
`obviousness. I think for the very reasons why Your Honor is asking about it
`is we're looking at figure 1 and we're going from figure 1.
`Does that fairly teach sharing a common frame address? We
`certainly think it does. But even to the extent the Board doesn't think it
`does, Banga clearly teaches it and the two references are readily combinable.
`Given that, I will reserve the remaining time for rebuttal, if you have
`no further questions.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Thank you, counsel. Patent Owner,
`whenever you're ready.
`MR. PICKARD: Good afternoon. And may it please the Board,
`again, Byron Pickard on behalf of the patent owner, Intellectual Ventures.
`As Mr. Centurelli pointed out, there are two issues that are under
`discussion today, the first being anticipation and the second being
`obviousness.
`And I just want to focus the initial portion of my presentation on the
`anticipation grounds and remind the Board of the very strict test that the
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`petitioner has to meet here. They must point to express or inherently present
`things in Cramer in order to anticipate.
`And I submit to you that there are at least several missing limitations
`from Cramer.
`And if we could look at patent owner's demonstrative 9 which has on
`it independent claim 1. And I'd like to focus the Board on the two assigning
`steps.
`
`So the first assigning step, there's a first virtual object. It is assigned
`a host address.
`And in the second assigning step, we have a second virtual object. It
`also is assigned a host address. But the key point here is that it has to have a
`different host address than the first virtual object and yet have a common
`frame address.
`So we turn to whether Cramer discloses a common frame address.
`Look at figure 4 of Cramer which we have in patent owner's demonstrative
`12.
`
`And what we have in Cramer is a very high-level description. We
`see in figure 4 what happens as it configures IP volumes. It identifies, do we
`have an IP volume? If yes, it attains an IP address, then maps that address to
`a NIC and advertises that address to the appropriate NICs and then rinse and
`repeat.
`
`What Cramer doesn't explain in sufficient detail is how it configures
`the second IP volume if we were to run through this. And I think this is
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`pointed out in some of the figures that Mr. Centurelli has put in front of
`Your Honors.
`If we could go to patent owner's slide 17. Pardon me, slide 19. All
`
`right.
`
`You see in figure 5, we have a single IP volume 510. It's been
`assigned to filer 1, and filer 1 has three NICs. And I want to stop here and
`make a point.
`It's not the NIC that provides the frame address. It's the MAC or
`MAC addresses that the NIC has been assigned that are the frame addresses
`in the petitioner's proposed anticipation grounds.
`And we see in filer 1 of figure 5 from Cramer a single IP volume
`assigned to a filer with multiple NICs. And that's significant because this
`disclosure, for example, doesn't tell us how, of course, Cramer would deal
`with the situation where we have a second IP volume, not to mention that it's
`entirely possible that it could assign NICs to each of those volumes.
`And we see the same thing if you look at --
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: But isn't the second IP volume -- isn't that
`what figure 4 is telling you: you have more devices to configure, yes, then
`you run through again?
`MR. PICKARD: Yes, it does. If we look back at patent owner's
`slide 12 which has figure 4 up, it says if we were to -- let's assume we've
`already configured the first IP volume. It has an IP address. It's been
`assigned to the NIC.
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`We then go back to the first step of figure 4. It doesn't tell you, for
`example, what the IP address of that second IP volume is. Is it the same or
`different than the first?
`And when we map that address to the NIC, it doesn't tell you, are we
`addressing it to the same NIC, a different NIC, or whether that given NIC
`has a single MAC address.
`And we see again where Cramer just doesn't get to that level of
`detail. If we look at patent owner's slide 20 where -- again, this is figure 9
`from Cramer -- we deal with the example of a single IP volume.
`So Cramer just doesn't teach how it would configure the IP volumes
`after it has configured one and it's dealing with the second, third, fourth, and
`so on.
`
`I do want to address a couple of points that Mr. Centurelli raised. He
`made an argument today that, for example -- and what was annotated,
`figures 1 and figure 2, from page 25 of the petition, that was in one of their
`demonstratives -- that each of those lines -- I believe he said a single line
`equals a single connection.
`That argument is not in the petition. The portion of the petition he
`refers to with those figures is a general overview of Cramer.
`They don't make that argument certainly when they are arguing that
`Cramer, on the anticipation grounds, that each of those lines should be
`thought of as a single connection. Not surprisingly, if you were to scour Dr.
`Karlin's declaration, you won't find opinions on that point.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`The fact of the matter is that Cramer just doesn't get to the level of
`detail that they would need to do to make out an anticipation case.
`The petitioner's argument on this point is, essentially, we have filers.
`The filers can host one IP volume or be associated with one IP volume. It
`can be associated with many IP volumes. We could have filers with one
`NIC or many NICs.
`And so it stands to reason therefore that we could have a one-to-one
`-- I'm sorry -- or a many-to-one relationship as Judge Galligan pointed out.
`But that's not anticipation. We're into obviousness. Dr. Karlin and
`the petitioner are making several inferential leaps that put them outside of
`the realm of anticipation.
`As a final point, I would like to point out that there's an underlying
`premise in the petitioner's case on this claim element and that is that each
`NIC has a single MAC.
`And as we pointed out on our motions for cross-examination of our
`own expert, Dr. Shenoy, I direct the Board to pages 84 and 85. And Dr.
`Shenoy at deposition said that was not the case, that NICs necessarily have a
`single MAC address, that you can assign multiple MAC addresses to a given
`NIC.
`
`We submit, of course, that's a missing limitation, and so --
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: So in that instance, if you have, let's say, two
`NICs and each NIC has two MAC addresses. But if you assign each IP
`volume to a different NIC, then they won't share a common frame address,
`right?
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`MR. PICKARD: That's right, and that's our point is that Cramer
`lacks a teaching of a common frame address.
`The reason I make the point to Dr. Shenoy's testimony is that even if
`they were right, that there are express disclosures in Cramer, the two IP
`volumes are ever assigned to a single NIC. That, in and of itself, is still not
`enough because we could have, for example, two MAC addresses. And it's
`the MAC address that they're pointing to as the corresponding --
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Oh, I see.
`MR. PICKARD: -- frame address of the claims. I'm sorry that I
`wasn't clear on that.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: No, no, no, you were. Thank you. I
`appreciate it.
`MR. PICKARD: And of course, if we don't have a common frame
`address, then we can't have the different IP addresses at the same time as the
`common frame address.
`I do want to turn next to whether the IP volumes of Cramer, whether
`the petitioner has shown sufficiently that those are the claimed virtual
`objects. And here, I think it's helpful to step through the petitioner's opening
`paper.
`
`And if we look to page 37 of the petition, the petitioner makes the
`assertion -- this is the last sentence of the top paragraph from page 37 -- an
`IP volume is a logical construct. It presents itself externally as an
`operational device, i.e., accessible by external clients.
`And they cite to two things.
`
`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
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`First, they cite to Cramer itself at column 11, lines 4 through 6. And
`if we look to column 11, lines 4 through 6, it says nothing of the sort.
`It reads, also clients accessing data stored on an IP volume only have
`to know the IP address of the volume.
`It doesn't say anything about how the IP volume represents itself to
`external users. It just stands for the unremarkable proposition that if you
`assign an IP address to the volume, it can be accessed using that volume.
`They also point to Dr. Karlin's testimony. This is at Exhibit 1002,
`paragraph 57 from his opening declaration. And what Dr. Karlin says -- this
`is the last verse -- is the concept of an IP volume in Kramer is such a logical
`construct. An IP volume does not necessarily point to a particular physical
`disk. Rather, it can aggregate the storage space of groups of disks and
`present a single operational storage device to external clients.
`And he cites to a different portion of Kramer, this time column 8 at
`lines 58 to 60. And if we turn there, what the Cramer reference says is that,
`as used in this description, an IP volume is a volume, individual disk or
`group of disks that is associated with a network address in accordance with
`this invention.
`Again, it doesn't describe how the IP volumes of Cramer present
`themselves externally.
`Now in reply, we have a new theory. This one is based on sort of
`two basic premises. They brought in a new reference, Patterson, that was
`not in the petition. I submit that that's not appropriate.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`And they have pivoted from those disclosures and the evidence of
`Dr. Karlin in his declaration and are now pointing to the RAIDs in Cramer
`and saying, well, listen, Cramer discloses RAIDs. Those would be
`understood to be virtual objects.
`I would just asked the Board when you read page 38 of the petition,
`there is a reference to the RAID disclosure in Cramer. But they're not
`pointing to the RAID to support the notion that the IP volumes are virtual
`objects, that they present themselves in a particular way.
`What they're pointing to the RAID disclosure in Cramer is to say,
`listen, we satisfy the portion of the limitation that talks about storage
`capabilities of a plurality of storage devices. And of course, RAIDs have
`many, many disks, as is known.
`There's a more basic failure though in the reliance on the RAID
`disclosure in Cramer, and that gets to the point that -- I thought I heard a
`question. If we look towards --
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Yes, I was going to ask a question, and I
`know that, in the petition, they reference column 2.
`Isn't that what -- don't we have to look at though what Cramer tells
`us are volumes first?
`And it says, disk storage is typically many or has one or more
`storage volumes that -- and I'm reading it to column 2, line 17 -- that
`comprise physical storage disks defining and overall logical arrangement of
`storage space. Then it says, it can be arranged in RAIDs. And then later,
`you have an IP volume is a volume.
`
`19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`So why isn't that a logical construct? It says it's a logical
`arrangement of storage space.
`MR. PICKARD: Well, so the column 2 description is, of course, the
`background of the invention. It's not an embodiment of Cramer.
`They don't drag in the disclosure from column 2 until the reply. And
`still, it doesn't tell us how it presents itself to the external user.
`I'm sorry. I spoke over you.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Because I thought in the overview, they're
`explaining how Cramer operates on page 24 of the petition. And they cited,
`column 2 lines 17 to 26, that it's at least -- it's telling -- Cramer is telling you
`what all these terms mean.
`And if a volume is a logical arrangement of storage space, why isn't
`that a logical construct?
`MR. PICKARD: I think what's missing from that description is the
`notion, in the petitioner's words, of how the IP volumes are presented to
`external users. That's not disclosed in the portions of Cramer that they have
`pointed to in their petition or even in the reply.
`I want to just draw out an important point on the RAID that I think
`illustrates what is going on, on the anticipation grounds.
`The only place that Cramer mentions RAIDs in one of its
`embodiments is shown in figure 3 of Cramer. And it's on this item, 324
`storage RAID. And what figure 3 is, is storage operating system 230.
`And if we flip back to figure 2 of Cramer, we see that same storage
`operating system 230, and it's within the filer 110 here.
`20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`If you just compare that figure to figure 5 of the Cramer reference,
`we see that the filer 1 is separate from the IP volumes.
`So in order for this theory about the RAIDs being the reason we have
`the IP volumes can be virtual objects, it would require combining the
`teaching that the RAIDs are part of the filer 110 now with the IP volume
`510.
`
`We're no longer anticipation, not to mention that that's a brand-new
`argument that wasn't raised anywhere in the petition.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: So I want to go back to the claim language.
`It says the first virtual object being a logical drive partition that represents an
`aggregation of storage capabilities, other plurality storage devices.
`In column 8, line 58 of Cramer, it says, it's used in this description.
`An IP volume is a volume, individual disk or a group of disks that is
`associated with a network address.
`I don't see any daylight between that and the logical partition of the
`claims. It's a group of disks. That's a plurality of storage devices.
`MR. PICKARD: Right. But the question is, does it present itself as
`a logical partition of the resources of this plurality of, in this case, disks,
`right? And so that's not --
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: No, but then volume is defined as an overall
`logical arrangement of storage space.
`MR. PICKARD: Right. Again, that doesn't -- a logical arrangement
`is not enough.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`Petitioner has put forward this notion that the language, for example,
`at column 8 is sufficient to show that how it presents itself externally. Dr.
`Shenoy has put in competing testimony on that point, and we submit that
`they just haven't met their burden. With that --
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: I do want to ask -- I know in the response and
`all -- I'll point to it -- petitioner -- or I'm sorry -- patent owner discusses
`figure 8.
`I have a few questions about that figure 8 of the ’132 patent. Does
`figure 8 encompass within the claim, or is that logical structure, is that what
`it's getting at in claim 1? It seems like that's what Patent Owner's argument.
`I was just trying to understand that.
`MR. PICKARD: I was conferring with my colleague. Yes, we
`believe that figure 8 is covered by the claims.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Okay, great. So I have a few questions about
`
`that.
`
`If we go to -- let's see -- well, it's discussed from the patent itself.
`Figure 8 is discussed at column 13 -- 15, I apologize. So I wanted to ask.
`In the patent owner's response -- I'm looking at page 14 -- you have
`figure 8 and you talk about these or you referenced the logical partition is
`located on each of these drives.
`Drive 838 comprises logical partition 833. So I see 833 as P1, and
`that's consistent with the specifications and description.
`My question is, how do those logical partitions -- so for instance,
`how does logical partition 833 represent a plurality of storage devices?
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR 2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`It looks like a physical partition and then the plurality -- the logical
`partition is the grouping of those partitions. So I'm confused as to why there
`were logical partitions used there in the spec.
`It seems like they're using it as the logical partition is one part of one
`storage device, then you aggregate those and that's something else. And the
`claim actually says that the logical partition is the aggregation of the storage
`devices.
`So I don't see how this maps to the claim at all, and I just wanted to
`ask you ab
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
