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
`
`______________________
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,387,132
`______________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. SCOTT C. KARLIN
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 8,387,132
`
`
`
`
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 1 of 27
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MY ENGAGEMENT BY LENOVO ............................................................ 3
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ...................................................................... 4
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`Level of Skill in the Art ....................................................................... 5
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Anticipation - 35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................ 6
`
`Obviousness - 35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS ................................................................. 7
`
`VI. THE ’132 PATENT ....................................................................................... 7
`
`VII. THE ’132 PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY ........................................ 9
`
`VIII. THE MEANING OF CERTAIN CLAIM TERMS ..................................... 10
`
`IX. EACH ELEMENT OF CLAIMS 1 AND 9 IS TAUGHT BY OR
`RENDERED OBVIOUS BY THE PRIOR ART ........................................ 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Background - Virtual and Multi-disk Network Attached
`Storage Devices ................................................................................. 11
`
`Cramer ............................................................................................... 12
`
`IBM Using iSCSI ............................................................................... 17
`
`D.
`
`Cramer and Banga ............................................................................ 22
`
`E.
`
`IBM Using iSCSI, Administrator’s Guide and Cramer..................... 24
`
`X. AVAILABILITY FOR EXAMINATION .................................................. 25
`
`XI. RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT ........................................................................ 25
`
`XII. SWORN OATH ........................................................................................... 25
`
`i
`
`
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 2 of 27
`
`

`
`
`
`I, Scott C. Karlin, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Princeton University in January 2003, a
`
`M.S. in Computer Science from Loyola Marymount University in May 1994, and a B.S. in
`
`Electrical Engineering from the California Institute of Technology in June 1986.
`
`2.
`
`I am the Senior Manager of Computing Facilities at the Department of Computer
`
`Science for Princeton University. I have held this position since January 2013.
`
`3.
`
`As Senior Manager, I oversee the group that installs, maintains, and upgrades the
`
`computing and networking infrastructure as well as develops and deploys applications for the
`
`department-wide academic, research, and administrative needs of the Princeton University
`
`Department of Computer Science. Included in the department infrastructure is a network file
`
`server with several hundred terabytes of storage. This storage is presented to other
`
`infrastructure hosts on the network using the Network File System (NFS) protocol. I also
`
`represent the department on various standing and ad hoc committees relating to technology
`
`and policy, including the Research Computing Advisory Group (RCAG) and the Data Center
`
`Advisory Group (DCAG).
`
`4.
`
`Before being named Senior Manager, I served as a Manager of Computing Facilities
`
`at the Department of Computer Science for Princeton University from October 2004 until
`
`December 2012. My duties were substantially the same as today.
`
`5.
`
`Before serving as Manager, I was a member of the Princeton University Department
`
`of Computer Science research staff from November 2003 until September 2004. During this
`
`time, I worked on the PlanetLab project. PlanetLab is an open platform for developing,
`
`deploying, and accessing planetary-scale network services. My duties included developing
`
`software for use by researchers using the testbed.
`
`1
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 3 of 27
`
`

`
`
`
`6.
`
`From November 2002 until October 2003, I was a Postdoctoral Research Associate in
`
`the Princeton University Department of Computer Science working on the PlanetLab project.
`
`My duties were substantially the same as in the previous paragraph.
`
`7.
`
`Prior to working at Princeton, I was employed by various private companies in the
`
`computer science and electrical engineering space from 1986 to 1996.
`
`8.
`
`My technical interests primarily lie near the interface between the hardware and the
`
`software in computer systems. I am specifically interested in operating systems, networking,
`
`security & privacy (and related policy), embedded systems, Internet-of-Things (IoT), and
`
`home automation.
`
`9.
`
`The focus of my Princeton Ph.D. thesis was on the low-level aspects of Internet
`
`routing and involved the design and implementation of an extensible router based on
`
`commodity PC hardware using intelligent network interface cards (NICs) containing local
`
`packet processing capability (either on general-purpose processors or on more specialized
`
`network processors). These components inspect and transform packet frames and headers to
`
`perform the routing of incoming packets to the proper destination interfaces. My thesis
`
`specifically considered extensible routers comprised of various types of intelligent NICs with
`
`varying capabilities (including different numbers of Ethernet ports per NIC). Collectively, all
`
`the ports across all NICs within a system were managed by a single device driver that
`
`presented separate virtualized network interfaces from the operating system to the routing
`
`software. Similar types of packet inspection, packet routing, and packet processing also
`
`occurs within the systems described by the ’132 patent.
`
`10.
`
`I have authored or co-authored 8 peer-reviewed academic publications in the field of
`
`computer science and engineering. I am a member of the IEEE, ACM, and USENIX
`
`professional societies. I was on the Program Committee for OPENARCH 2002 and
`
`OPENARCH 2003, the Fifth and Sixth IEEE Conference on Open Architectures and
`
`2
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 4 of 27
`
`

`
`
`
`Network Programming. As a member of the Program Committee, my primary contribution
`
`was to review papers and then attend meetings to select those that would be included in the
`
`program. Topics for papers accepted to OPENARCH described research in open and
`
`programmable network elements with the overall goal of redefining network software
`
`architectures and moving control and management systems for networks away from the
`
`(then) traditional closed/rigid solutions. Such research would be in the same space of topics
`
`(network packet processing, internal or external routing of packets and messages within a
`
`system, novel routing techniques including multicast) as included in the ’132 patent.
`
`11.
`
`In addition to my technical and management responsibilities, I also teach at Princeton
`
`University in the Department of Computer Science from time-to-time. I have been a
`
`preceptor for the following courses/semesters: COS 217, Introduction to Programming
`
`Systems, Spring 2016 (Lecturer appointment); COS 126, General Computer Science, Spring
`
`2008; COS 217, Introduction to Programming Systems, Fall 1998; COS 126, General
`
`Computer Science, Spring 1997; COS 471, Computer Architecture and Organization, Fall
`
`1996. COS 126 and COS 217, in particular, introduce the foundations of many aspects of
`
`computer science, including algorithms, algorithm design, data structures, theory of
`
`computation; they also teach practical aspects of programming including the Java and C
`
`languages, how these languages are compiled into machine executable instructions, and how
`
`to interact with operating services (including interacting with hardware such as disk storage).
`
`12.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1003 to this submission.
`
`II. MY ENGAGEMENT BY LENOVO
`
`13.
`
`I have been asked by Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Lenovo” or “Petitioner”) to serve
`
`as an independent expert in this proceeding and to review claims 1 and 9 of the ’132 patent in
`
`view of the prior art. I understand my inquiry is limited at this point to claims 1 and 9 as
`
`3
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 5 of 27
`
`

`
`
`
`those are the only claims presently asserted against Lenovo in a pending federal patent
`
`infringement lawsuit.
`
`14.
`
`I am being compensated by Petitioner at my normal consulting rate for my work on
`
`this matter.
`
`15. My compensation is based on my time spent on this matter.
`
`16. My compensation is not dependent upon the content of my statements set forth in this
`
`Declaration.
`
`17.
`
`I am not employed by Petitioners. I have no financial interest in the Petitioners (other
`
`than what may be in my mutual fund portfolio) or the ’132 patent.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`18.
`
`I have reviewed the specification and claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,387,132 attached as
`
`Ex. 1001 to this submission.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the ’132 patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`12/574,622, which claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 11/139,206, filed on May
`
`26, 2005, now U.S. Patent No. 7,620,981.
`
`20.
`
`I have reviewed prosecution history for the ’132 patent attached as Ex. 1004 to this
`
`submission. I understand this prosecution history reflects the communications between the
`
`Applicants and the Patent Office regarding the decision to grant the ’132 patent.
`
`21.
`
`I have also reviewed the following documents, which I understand are prior art to the
`
`’132 patent:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,387,132 (the “’132 Patent,” Ex. 1001)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,707,263 to Cramer et al. (“Cramer,” Ex. 1005)
`
`Rowell Hernandez et al., Using iSCSI Solutions’ Planning and
`Implementation, by IBM Corporation (2002) (“IBM Using iSCSI,” Ex. 1006)
`
`IBM TotalStorage IP Storage 200i Administrator’s Guide, by IBM
`Corporation (2001) (“Administrator’s Guide,” Ex. 1007)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,895,429 to Banga et al. (“Banga,” Ex. 1008)
`
`4
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 6 of 27
`
`

`
`
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`Andrew S. Tanenbaum et al., Computer Networks (3d. ed. 1997) (select pages)
`(“Computer Networks” Ex. 1009)
`
`Rodney Van Meter, et al., Derived Virtual Devices: A Secure Distributed File
`System Mechanism, (September 13, 1996), from Proceedings of the Fifth
`NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Conference on Mass Storage Systems
`and Technologies (September 1996) (“Derived Virtual Devices”, Ex 1010)
`
`John L. Hufferd, ISCSI: The Universal Storage Connection (2003)
`(“ISCSI: The Universal Storage Connection”, Ex 1011)
`
`Douglas Downing Ph.D. et al., Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms,
`(7th ed. 2000) (select pages) (“Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms”,
`Ex. 1017)
`
`David C. Plummer, Request For Comments (RFC) 826: An Ethernet Address
`Resolution Protocol, published by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
`(Nov. 1982)
`
`22.
`
`I believe based on my education and work experience that I am qualified to opine
`
`about the state of the art of the technology recited and claimed in the ’132 patent as of its
`
`filing and the other materials listed above.
`
`23.
`
`It is not my intention to offer any conclusions as to the ultimate determinations that I
`
`understand the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may make regarding the ’132 patent. For
`
`example, I am not offering opinions on ultimate issues of validity or claim construction. I am
`
`simply providing my opinions on certain technical aspects of the documents discussed herein
`
`as compared to claims 1 and 9 of the ’132 patent.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A. Level of Skill in the Art
`
`24.
`
`I understand that one of the relevant factors in this proceeding is the level of skill in
`
`the pertinent art.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the pertinent date for this determination is the date of alleged
`
`invention. For purposes of this declaration, Petitioners asked me to assume that the date of
`
`invention for the ’132 patent is approximately May 26, 2005; the earliest priority date
`
`identified on the face of the ’132 patent.
`
`5
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 7 of 27
`
`

`
`
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of May 26, 2005 would have had
`
`a bachelor’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering and 3-5 years of
`
`professional experience in computer network or storage system design, or a master’s or
`
`doctorate degree in computer science or electrical engineering and 1-2 years of professional
`
`experience in computer network or storage system design, or equivalent academic
`
`experience.
`
`27.
`
`I believe I qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art in 2005 based on my
`
`experiences listed above.
`
`B. Anticipation - 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`28.
`
`I understand “prior art” refers to an earlier patent or printed publication predating an
`
`invention under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid as anticipated by the “prior art” under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a) if “the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described
`
`in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the
`
`applicant for patent.” I have also been informed that a claim is invalid as anticipated under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if “the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this
`
`or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the
`
`date of the application for patent in the United States.” Further, I have been informed that a
`
`claim is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) if “the invention was described in …
`
`an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States
`
`before the invention by the applicant for patent.”
`
`30.
`
`I understand for a claim to be anticipated, all of the claimed limitations must be
`
`present in a single prior art reference either expressly or inherently. I understand material not
`
`explicitly contained in the single reference is still considered for anticipation purposes if the
`
`material is incorporated by reference.
`
`6
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 8 of 27
`
`

`
`
`
`C. Obviousness - 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103: “if the
`
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which [the] subject matter pertains.”
`
`32.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention would have been obvious, and therefore not
`
`patentable, if the subject matter claimed would have been considered obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made. I understand that when there
`
`are known elements that perform in known ways and produce predictable results, the
`
`combination of those elements is likely obvious.
`
`33.
`
`Further, I understand that when there is a predictable variation and a person would see
`
`the benefit of making that variation, implementing that predictable variation is likely not
`
`patentable. I have also been informed that obviousness does not require absolute
`
`predictability of success, but that what does matter is whether the prior art gives direction as
`
`to what parameters are critical and which of many possible choices may be successful.
`
`V.
`
`34.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`Cramer alone, IBM Using iSCSI alone, the combination of Cramer and Banga, or the
`
`combination of IBM Using iSCSI, Administrator’s Guide and Cramer, discusses each
`
`limitation of claims 1 and 9 of the ’132 Patent.
`
`VI.
`
`THE ’132 PATENT
`
`35.
`
`According to the cover of the ’132 patent, the ’132 patent was patented on February
`
`26, 2013. It was filed on October 6, 2009 and is a continuation of another application filed on
`
`May 26, 2005.
`
`7
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 9 of 27
`
`

`
`
`
`36.
`
`The ’132 patent is titled “INFORMATION PACKET COMMUNICATION WITH
`
`VIRTUAL OBJECTS.” It describes providing “a network storage system” in which “[u]sers
`
`and applications can access the data store where data is spread over multiple hard disks
`
`located remotely from the user over a network in a manner that appears to be a single drive.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 19:24-28. The ’132 patent used an approach to route packets to virtual storage
`
`devices which aggregates storage capabilities of multiple target storage devices. Id., Abstract.
`
`37.
`
`Specifically, the system assigns different network routable host addresses, for
`
`example IP addresses, to multiple virtual objects. Id., Claim 1. One of the virtual objects is a
`
`logical drive partition representing an aggregation of storage capabilities of multiple storage
`
`devices. Id. These host addresses are associated with a common frame address, for example a
`
`MAC address. Id. When the system receives an incoming packet addressed to a virtual object,
`
`it transforms the packet into a device-level request to access one of the storage devices, and
`
`issues the request to that device. Id.
`
`38.
`
`Figure 5 below shows the logical structure of the ’132 patent. 528A-N are the virtual
`
`objects, and 540A-M are the storage devices. In the context of the ’132 patent, “virtual
`
`device” and “virtual object” are interchangeable.
`
`
`
`8
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 10 of 27
`
`

`
`
`
`VII. THE ’132 PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`EX. 1001 AT FIG. 5.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that the ’132 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 12/574,622.
`
`During prosecution of this patent application, the Examiner cited a reference U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,111,303 (“Macchiano”) and rejected the original claims. Ex. 1004 at 541-63.
`
`Thereafter, the applicants amended claims 21 and 30 (which I understand became claims 1
`
`and 9 of the ’132 patent) to include “the first virtual object being a logical drive partition that
`
`represents an aggregation of storage capabilities of a plurality of storage devices,” and argued
`
`Macchiano did not include this feature. Id. at 512-16, 519.
`
`41.
`
`This argument did not persuade the Examiner. Id. at 468-72. The applicants then
`
`amended claims 21 and 30 to include “processing unit” or processing “device.” Id. at 115-19,
`
`450-54. Finally, in a paper titled “PRE-APPEAL BRIEF REVIEW REQUEST
`
`ACCOMPANYING NOTICE OF APPEAL,” the applicants argued “[t]here is nothing to
`
`teach or suggest that these virtual devices are directly addressable by remote devices,” and
`
`the Examiner eventually allowed the claims. Id. at 21-28, 50-51, 58-62.
`
`42.
`
`In the same paper, the applicants also stated:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at 58-62.
`
`43.
`
`In my opinion, in view of prior art not before the examiner, the references do teach
`
`“assigning, by a packet processor …, a first host address to a first virtual object, the first
`
`virtual object being a logical drive partition that represents an aggregation of storage
`
`capabilities of a plurality of storage devices.” For example, Cramer and IBM Using iSCSI
`
`9
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 11 of 27
`
`

`
`
`
`both discuss the same structure performing the same steps as claims 1 and 9 of the ’132
`
`patent.
`
`VIII. THE MEANING OF CERTAIN CLAIM TERMS
`
`44.
`
`I have been informed and understand that for purposes of this proceeding, the claim
`
`terms should be given their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification”
`
`and “consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach.”
`
`45.
`
`I further understand that to the extent there is any ambiguity regarding the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of a claim term, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the
`
`broader construction absent amendment by the patent owner to narrow the claim term.
`
`46.
`
`I have reviewed the constructions proposed by Petitioners in the Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review, which are set forth below:
`
`
`
`“packet processor”: any combination of software or firmware that runs on a
`
`processing unit of an electronic device and processes packets.
`
`
`
`“network routable” “host address”: a physical interface independent address that is
`
`capable of directing information to a destination, such as any version of IP address, or any
`
`address that resolves to a network address based on applications or protocol.
`
`
`
`“frame address”: address associated with a physical media interface, such as a MAC
`
`address.
`
`
`
`“virtual object”: a logical construct that presents itself externally as an operational
`
`device.
`
`
`
`“control portion”: portion of a packet containing information used to determine how
`
`the packet should be routed.
`
`47.
`
`I believe Petitioners’ proposals are correct and consistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation a person of ordinary skill in the art would reach in view of the specification of
`
`the ’132 patent.
`
`10
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 12 of 27
`
`

`
`
`
`48.
`
`I understand every other claim term not construed above by Petition should be
`
`considered under its ordinary and customary meaning in light of the specification, as
`
`commonly understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. I have applied these constructions
`
`in my analysis of the prior art.
`
`IX.
`
`49.
`
`EACH ELEMENT OF CLAIMS 1 AND 9 IS TAUGHT BY OR
`RENDERED OBVIOUS BY THE PRIOR ART
`
`As part of my work in this matter, I have been asked to consider whether the Cramer
`
`patent, IBM Using iSCSI, Administrator’s Guide, and/or the Banga patent teaches each
`
`limitation of claims 1 and 9 of the ’132 Patent. For the reasons given below, it is my opinion
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Cramer alone, IBM Using
`
`iSCSI alone, the combination of Cramer and Banga, or the combination of IBM Using iSCSI,
`
`Administrator’s Guide and Cramer, teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 9 of the ’132
`
`Patent.
`
`A. Background - Virtual and Multi-disk Network Attached Storage Devices
`
`50.
`
`By way of background, virtual storage devices were known for years before May
`
`2005. For example, by at least as early as 1996, the NetStation Project at the Information
`
`Sciences Institute at the University of Southern California had been working with network
`
`attached peripherals and distributed systems. See, e.g., Ex. 1010 Derived Virtual Devices
`
`(1996), at p. 1. These network attached peripherals are devices that communicate with the
`
`external world via a network interface rather than a bus, and could be assembled into
`
`precisely the type of distributed system described by the ’132 patent as a “decentralized
`
`system.” Compare Ex. 1010 at 1 (discussing how a “network attached peripheral” or “NAP”
`
`can be assembled into a “distributed system…brought together as a single system operating
`
`across a network”) with ’132 patent (Ex. 1001) at 2:46-57 (discussing how a decentralized
`
`system can distribute devices over a network, but “appear” as locally connected from the
`
`perspective of other devices). These network attached peripherals could connect with each
`
`11
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 13 of 27
`
`

`
`
`
`other over an IP network. Ex. 1010, 2 (“[W]e have chosen to support IP connectivity of these
`
`devices”).
`
`51.
`
`The authors of the NetStation project also taught that network attached peripherals
`
`represented as “virtual objects.” For example, the NetStation authors taught that “derived
`
`virtual devices” or “DVDs” can be used as an “abstraction of a physical device”, Ex. 1010 at
`
`3, and that DVDs can be used as an “enabling technology in file systems”, Ex. 1010 at 6; cf.
`
`’132 patent (2:54-55 (“Decentralization, by its very nature, includes the concept of
`
`virtualization”); 3:23-26 (“To fully realize the benefits and capabilities offered by
`
`decentralization, devices and virtual devices need to pass information to each other in an
`
`organized way, as if they exist on a virtualized bus.”). See e.g., Ex. 1002 at ¶ 50 discussing
`
`Ex. 1010 Derived Virtual Devices (1996) at p. 11.
`
`52.
`
`Likewise, multi-disk network attached storage appliances were also well known for
`
`years before May 2005. For example, John L. Hufferd, writes about multi-disk network
`
`attached storage appliances in his 2003 book, ISCSI: The Universal Storage Connection.
`
`Specifically, Hufferd explains in Chapter 1, “The Background of SCSI” that SCSI (Small
`
`Computer System Interface) is connection technique using a SCSI bus and a SCSI protocol to
`
`connect disk drives and other devices to server systems. See Ex. 1011, ISCSI: The Universal
`
`Storage Connection (2003) at 1. In Chapter 4, Hufferd describes iSCSI (Internet SCSI) as a
`
`transport protocol that carries SCSI commands from host computer systems to targets over an
`
`IP-based network. See Ex. 1011 at 49 and 51. In Chapter 2, “The Value and Position of
`
`iSCSI” Hufferd discusses pooled storage consisting “of simple iSCSI JBODs (just a bunch of
`
`disks) or RAID controllers, all connected to the same network via iSCSI.” See Ex. 1011, at
`
`19. In Chapter 3, Hufferd focuses on “The History of iSCSI” and discusses the 2001 launch
`
`by IBM of its iSCSI native RAID storage controller call the IP TotalStorage 200i. See Ex.
`
`1011 at 46. RAID is an acronym for Redundant Array of Inexpensive/Independent Disks, a
`
`12
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 14 of 27
`
`

`
`
`
`well-known technique for treating a group of disks as a single device. See e.g., Ex. 1017,
`
`Douglas Downing Ph.D. et al., Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms, (7th ed. 2000)
`
`(select pages defining “RAID”).
`
`B. Cramer
`
`53.
`
`The Cramer patent generally describes a network storage system which assigns a
`
`network address to each volume, such that input/output operations can be directed to a
`
`particular volume using the network address. Ex. 1005, Abstract.
`
`54.
`
`Cramer states that a disadvantage of prior storage systems is that when a file server is
`
`taken out of the network, the data managed by the file server becomes unavailable. Id. at 4:9-
`
`25. Cramer’s solution to this problem is to identify storage devices by IP addresses or similar
`
`addresses, thus making storage devices network accessible by client devices. Id. at 4:47-52.
`
`55.
`
`The configuration in Cramer uses “filers” running a “storage operating system” to
`
`manage storage devices. Id. at 6:1-3, 46-52. The storage operating system first assigns
`
`network addresses (e.g., IP addresses) to “IP volumes.” Id. 8:58-64. One “IP volume” can
`
`designate multiple physical disks. Id. at 6:25-27. When the filer receives a data request
`
`message (e.g., a packet) containing a network address, it processes the message in a data path,
`
`and outputs a disk access request to a disk indicated by the network address. Id. at 1:31-31,
`
`8:1-38, 9:67-10:3, Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`packet processor
`
`56.
`
`In my opinion, Cramer discloses a packet processor executing on a processing unit of
`
`an electronic device. I have explained above that a “packet processor” means any
`
`combination of software or firmware that runs on a processing unit of an electronic device
`
`and processes packets. The “storage operating system” in Cramer, in my opinion, is this
`
`software or firmware. See id. at 6:33-52, Fig. 2. The electronic device is processor 222 of, for
`
`example, file server 110 (filer 1). Ex. 1005 at 6:33-52, Fig. 2. As shown in Fig. 3 (shown
`
`13
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 15 of 27
`
`

`
`
`
`below), the storage operating system running on processor 222 processes incoming messages
`
`(in the form of packets) by “a series of software layers” forming a data path. Id. at 3:61-64,
`
`8:1-2, Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`virtual object
`
`57.
`
`In my opinion, Cramer discloses a first virtual object being a logical drive partition
`
`that represents an aggregation of storage capabilities of a plurality of storage devices. As
`
`discussed, a “virtual object” means a logical construct that presents itself externally as an
`
`operational device. The concept of “IP volume” in Cramer 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 a group of disks, and present a single operational storage device to external
`
`clients. See id. at 8:58-60.
`
`
`
`first and second host addresses
`
`58.
`
`In my opinion, Cramer discloses the packet processor assigning first and second host
`
`addresses to first and second virtual objects, respectively, wherein the first and second host
`
`14
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 16 of 27
`
`

`
`
`
`addresses are different network routable addresses. An example of a “network routable” “host
`
`address” is an IP address. In Cramer, the storage operating system assigns IP addresses to IP
`
`volumes, and this is repeated for each IP volume managed by the filer. Id. at 8:58-64, 9:33-
`
`34, Fig. 4.
`
`
`
`common frame address
`
`59.
`
`In my opinion, Cramer discloses the first and second host addresses are both
`
`associated with a common frame address that corresponds to a network interface that
`
`communicatively couples the packet processor to a network. An example of a “frame
`
`address” is a MAC address. In Cramer, the storage operating system maps the IP addresses
`
`to a MAC address of a network interface controller (NIC). Id. at 9:44-49, Fig. 4. An example
`
`of a NIC is network adapter 226 of filer 110 shown in Fig. 2, which connects filer 110 to the
`
`network to allow users to access the IP volumes. As shown by filer 110 of Fig. 2 and Fig. 9
`
`(below), the filer 110 has only one NIC, i.e., a single network adapter 226 in Fig. 2, or NIC
`
`E0 in Fig. 9. Id. at Figs. 2, 9. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art reviewing figures
`
`2 and 9 would understand that in Cramer, the IP addresses assigned to the filer 110 are
`
`associated with a common MAC address, i.e., the MAC address of NIC E0.
`
`15
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 17 of 27
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`receiving packet
`
`60.
`
`The NIC, having the single MAC address, operates to communicatively couple filer
`
`110 (and its storage operating system 230) to a network, i.e., LAN 102, so that clients may
`
`access the series of IP volumes using the series of assigned IP addresses remotely over
`
`Internet 109. Ex. 1005 at 7:1-7, Figs. 1, 2. For example, step 412 of FIG. 4, provides: “the
`
`IP address is then advertised over the appropriate NICs. This advertising can be
`
`accomplished through the use of the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP). ARP is further
`
`described in Request For Comments (RFC) 826: An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol,
`
`published by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) (Nov. 1982), which is incorporated
`
`herein by reference.” Ex. 1005 at 9:55-61.
`
`61.
`
`In my opinion, Cramer discloses receiving, by the packet processor, an information
`
`packet from the network interface, the information packet having a control portion including
`
`the first host address. The filer in Cramer receives messages in the form of packets, e.g.,
`
`“packets addressed to the volume’s IP address.” Id. 3:61-64, 9:67-10:3. As discussed, a
`
`“control portion” means a portion of a packet containing information used to determine how
`
`16
`
`LENOVO ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 18 of 27
`
`

`
`
`
`the packet should be routed. It was well known that an IP packet has a control portion and a
`
`person of skill in the art would understand that the IP address was located in the control
`
`portion of the packet. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in filer 110,
`
`network adapter 226 is responsible for receiving packets, because network adapter 226
`
`connects the filer to the network. See id. at Fig. 2. See e.g., Andrew S. Tanenbaum et al.,
`
`Computer Networks, (3d ed. 1997) discussing packets at p. 7.
`
`
`
`transforming packet
`
`62.
`
`In my opinion, Cramer discloses transforming, by the packet processor, the
`
`information packet into a device-level requ