`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`DAEDALUS BLUE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`Title: SYSTEM, METHOD, AND APPARATUS FOR POLICY-BASED DATA
`MANAGEMENT
`Filing Date: 03/14/2003
`Issue Date: 03/11/2014
`
`_________________________
`
`
`DAEDALUS BLUE, LLC’S PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Page
`
`II.
`
`Overview of the ’132 Patent ............................................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`Technical Background ........................................................................... 3
`
`1. Mainframe Computing ................................................................ 3
`
`2.
`
`Distributed Computing ................................................................ 4
`
`B.
`
`Applications and Advantages of the ’132 Patent .................................. 5
`
`C.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 6
`
`III. Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 7
`
`A. All Challenged Claims: “a plurality of clients, the clients comprising at
`least two different computing platforms” ............................................. 7
`
`1.
`
`The claimed “plurality of clients” are clients in a networked
`environment. ............................................................................... 8
`
`2.
`
`The claimed “computing platforms” are operating systems. .... 10
`
`IV. Ground 1: Microsoft failed to prove that Claims 15-21 and 23-25 would have
`been obvious over Gelb in view of Tivoli. .................................................... 12
`
`A.
`
`Claims 15-21 and 23-25: Microsoft failed to prove that both Gelb and
`Tivoli are available as prior art for its obviousness ground. ............... 12
`
`1. Microsoft failed to prove that Gelb is analogous art. ............... 12
`
`2. Microsoft failed to prove that Tivoli qualified as a prior art
`printed publication as of the ’132 Patent’s critical date. .......... 34
`
`B.
`
`Claims 15-21 and 23-25: Microsoft failed to prove that “receiving one
`or more attributes of a file from one of a plurality of clients, the clients
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`
`Page
`
`comprising at least two different computing platforms” would have
`been obvious over Gelb in view of Tivoli. .......................................... 38
`
`1. Microsoft failed to prove that Gelb alone teaches, suggests, or
`discloses “receiving one or more attributes of a file from one of
`a plurality of clients, the clients comprising at least two different
`computing platforms.” .............................................................. 38
`
`2. Microsoft failed to prove that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
`have been motivated to combine Gelb and Tivoli to “receiv[e]
`one or more attributes of a file from one of a plurality of clients,
`the clients comprising at least two different computing
`platforms.” ................................................................................. 39
`
`C.
`
`Claim 18: Microsoft failed to prove that “assigning the storage pool to
`the file comprises applying the storage pool rule to the characteristics
`of the available storage pools to assign the storage pool to the file”
`would have been obvious over Gelb in view of Tivoli. ...................... 45
`
`V. Ground 2: Microsoft failed to prove that Claim 22 would have been obvious
`over Gelb in view of Tivoli and Callaghan. .................................................. 50
`
`VI. Ground 3: Microsoft failed to prove that Devarakonda anticipates Claims 15-
`21 and 23-25. ................................................................................................. 55
`
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 59
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.,
`908 F.3d 765 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................ 34, 36
`
`Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.,
`963 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..................................................................... 44
`
`Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................................. 56, 58
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 44
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 36
`
`Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc.,
`795 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................ 12, 13, 34
`
`CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP,
`112 F.3d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................ 9, 11
`
`Donner Tech. LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC,
`979 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..................................................................... 21
`
`Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`271 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Mich. 2003) ........................................................ 34
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`453 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................... 9
`
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................... 14
`
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .......................................................... 20, 21, 31
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Fine,
`837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ..................................................................... 50
`
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 21
`
`In re Oelrich,
`666 F.2d 578 (CCPA 1981) ........................................................................... 56
`
`In re Oetiker,
`977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .............................................................. 30, 33
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 44
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Enfish, LLC,
`662 F. App’x 981 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential) .......................... 40, 51
`
`Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................... 55
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ................................................ 7, 10
`
`Regents Univ. Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp.,
`717 F.3d 929, 936 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................. 9
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd.,
`929 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................................................................... 36
`
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
`701 F. App’x 971 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (non-precedential) .......................... 40, 51
`
`Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.,
`721 F. App’x 943 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) .......................... 31, 33
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Hldgs. Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................................................................... 9
`
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ....................................................................... 20
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016). ................................................. 42, 45, 51, 52
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 20
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ................................................................................................... 13
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 37
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`Administrative Decisions
`
`Guardian All. Techs., Inc. v. Miller,
`Case IPR2020-00031, Paper 27 (PTAB July 27, 2020) ................................ 36
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`Case IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (designated
`precedential) .................................................................................................. 35
`
`Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.,
`Case IPR2018-00827, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2018) (designated
`informative) ................................................................................................... 40
`
`Kayak Software Corp. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
`Case CBM2016-00076, Paper 16 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2016) ............................. 36
`
`La.-Pac. Corp. v. Huber Eng’d Woods, LLC,
`Case IPR2020-00605, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 20, 2020) ............................... 35
`
`Lyft, Inc. v. Quartz Auto Techs., LLC,
`Case IPR2020-01450, Paper 7 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2021) ................................... 41
`
`Quectel Wireless Sol'ns Co. Ltd. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.,
`Case IPR2021-00558, Paper 7 (PTAB Sept. 16, 2021) ................................. 41
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`All citations to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112 in this paper refer to the pre-AIA
`statutes.
`
`All emphases in quotations are added unless otherwise noted.
`
`This paper includes color illustrations and should be viewed in color.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`2002
`2003
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Description
`Declaration of Professor Jules White, Ph.D.
`Declaration of David Pease, Ph.D.
`Declaration of Linda Duyanovich.
`Order Governing Proceedings, Daedalus Blue, LLC v. Microsoft
`Corp., Case No. 6:20-CV-1152-ADA, Dkt. No. 23 (W.D. Tex.
`June 30, 2021).
`Microsoft Corporation’s Notice of Filing Petitions for Inter
`Partes Review, Daedalus Blue, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Case
`No. 6:20-cv-1152-ADA, Dkt. No. 19 (W.D. Tex. May 7, 2021).
`Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions, Daedalus Blue, LLC v.
`Microsoft Corp., Case No. 6:20-cv-1152-ADA.
`Chart C-1 from Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions, Daedalus
`Blue, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 6:20-cv-1152- ADA.
`Chart C-2 from Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions, Daedalus
`Blue, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 6:20-cv-1152- ADA.
`Chart C-6 from Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions, Daedalus
`Blue, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 6:20-cv-1152- ADA.
`Chart C-7 from Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions, Daedalus
`Blue, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 6:20-cv-1152- ADA.
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, Definition for
`‘main frame,’ 2002.
`IBM, “Storage Tank, Initial Programming Functional
`Specifications, Version 1.1,” dated April 26, 2001.
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL.
`IBM, “Storage Tank, Initial Programming Functional
`Specifications, Version 1.2,” dated June 11, 2001.
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL.
`IBM, “IBM Storage Tank: Storage Tank Strategy, Product
`Positioning,” dated September 17, 2001. PROTECTIVE
`ORDER MATERIAL.
`IBM, “Storage Tank: Development Review,” dated February 11,
`2002. PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL.
`IBM, “Storage Tank: Release 1: High Level Design, Version
`Draft 0,” dated February 19, 2002. PROTECTIVE ORDER
`MATERIAL.
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`2021
`2022
`2023
`2024
`(New)
`2025
`(New)
`2026
`(New)
`2027
`(New)
`
`Description
`IBM, “Storage Tank Development Schedule,” dated February
`2002. PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL.
`Defendant’s Revised Proposed Claim Constructions, Daedalus
`Blue, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 6:20-cv-1152-ADA,
`dated August 11, 2021.
`Defendant’s Disclosure of Extrinsic Evidence, Daedalus Blue,
`LLC v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 6:20-cv-1152- ADA, dated
`August 3, 2021.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,776 to Martin (“Martin”).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,167,445 to Gai (“Gai”).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,212,562 to Huang (“Huang”).
`Declaration of Michael Flynn-O’Brien.
`Declaration of Christopher Jules White, Ph.D. (cited as “White
`POR Decl.”).
`Deposition Transcript of Erez Zadok, Ph.D. (cited as “Zadok
`Dep. Tr.”).
`Paulo Verissimo & Luis Rodrigues, DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS FOR
`SYSTEMS ARCHITECTS (2001).
`Excerpt from Gelb’s Storage Group ACS Routine with line
`numbers added.
`
`
`All citations to specific pages of exhibits follow the pagination added to those
`exhibits per 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2)(i).
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Claims 15-25 of U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132 are patentable over Microsoft’s
`
`challenges based on Gelb (Ex. 1005); Tivoli (Ex. 1006); Callaghan (Ex. 1007); and
`
`Devarakonda (Ex. 1008). As explained in this paper and in the declaration of Dr.
`
`Jules White, an expert with over twenty years of experience in computer science and
`
`computer engineering—including distributed storage systems (White POR Decl.
`
`¶¶ 10-18)—each of Microsoft’s three unpatentability grounds suffers from at least
`
`one fatal failure of proof.
`
`Ground 1 fails right out of the gate. Although Microsoft contends that Claims
`
`15-21 and 23-25 would have been obvious over Gelb in view of Tivoli, Microsoft
`
`failed to prove that either Gelb or Tivoli is available as prior art. In particular,
`
`Microsoft failed to prove that Gelb qualifies as analogous art to the ’132 Patent. And
`
`Microsoft failed to prove that Tivoli qualifies as a prior art printed publication. Each
`
`of those failures of proof provides an independent reason to reject Ground 1.
`
`Even if it is found that Gelb and Tivoli are available as prior art, Microsoft
`
`still cannot prevail on Ground 1. Each of Claims 15-21 and 23-25 recites or includes
`
`the limitation “receiving one or more attributes of a file from one of a plurality of
`
`clients, the clients comprising at least two different computing platforms.” The
`
`“plurality of clients” refers to clients in a networked environment, and the “at least
`
`two different computing platforms” refers to at least two different operating systems.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`
`Gelb alone fails to disclose that limitation, as Gelb is limited to a single-computer
`
`mainframe system. And Microsoft’s combination of Gelb and Tivoli calls for a
`
`ground-up reconstruction of Gelb’s single-computer mainframe system to function
`
`in Tivoli’s multiple-computer distributed environment—but Microsoft identified no
`
`reason that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have selected Gelb in the first place.
`
`Claim 18 is also separately patentable because Microsoft failed to prove that Gelb
`
`teaches, suggests, or discloses the limitation “applying the rule to the characteristics
`
`of the available storage pools to assign the storage pool to the file.”
`
`Ground 2 fares no better. In Ground 2, Microsoft contends that Claim 22,
`
`which depends from independent Claim 15, would have been obvious over Gelb in
`
`view of Tivoli and further in view of Callaghan. But the petition does not even
`
`allege that Callaghan cures the deficiencies of Gelb and Tivoli as to independent
`
`Claim 15, and that alone defeats Ground 2. Further, Microsoft’s stated reasons for
`
`combining Callaghan with Gelb and Tivoli miss the mark. Each of Microsoft’s
`
`stated reasons for combining Callaghan with Gelb and Tivoli either relies on
`
`hindsight or fails to provide the benefits that Microsoft alleges.
`
`Microsoft cannot prevail on Ground 3, either. There, Microsoft contends that
`
`Claims 15-21 and 23-25 are anticipated by Devarakonda. But Microsoft failed to
`
`prove that Devarakonda discloses a “plurality of clients” that comprises “at least two
`
`different computing platforms”—i.e., at least two operating systems. Indeed,
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`
`Devarakonda does not identify any particular operating system that its purported
`
`clients comprise. Nor does Devarakonda inherently disclose “a plurality of clients”
`
`that comprises at least two different operating systems.
`
`In light of those failures of proof, the challenged claims should all be upheld.
`
`II. Overview of the ’132 Patent
`
`A. Technical Background
`
`1. Mainframe Computing
`
`A mainframe computer is a single computer enclosed in a single large box or
`
`frame. (White POR Decl. ¶ 26; Ex. 2011 at 3.) A mainframe computer is designed
`
`for processing transactions (operations on data) at a high rate of speed with very high
`
`reliability. (White POR Decl. ¶ 27.) Mainframes include specialized hardware—
`
`and are often provided with excess computing resources—to ensure high levels of
`
`speed, reliability, and predictability. (Id. ¶¶ 27-28.) For the same reason, a
`
`mainframe employs only one operating system, data storage format, and set of
`
`interfaces. (Id. ¶¶ 27, 30.) As a result, mainframe application developers can write
`
`software that assumes the system will not fail mid-transaction. (Id. ¶ 27.)
`
`The main reason to use a mainframe computer is that its centralized
`
`architecture simplifies the ordering and prioritization of transactions. (White POR
`
`Decl. ¶ 29.) “Because all of a mainframe’s computing resources are contained
`
`within the mainframe, the mainframe can easily allocate and deallocate resources to
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`
`aid in prioritization of operations.” A mainframe’s centralized architecture also
`
`facilitates allocating and reallocating resources to prioritize operations, because the
`
`system has “a complete picture of the resources available and pending transactions,
`
`as well as the ability to prioritize individual transactions in its queue.” (Id.)
`
`One drawback of using a mainframe to process all transactions is cost. (White
`
`POR Decl. ¶ 31.) The specialized hardware required to build them could be very
`
`expensive. (Id.) “Therefore, organizations that build on top of mainframes can pay
`
`a premium for the computing power.” (Id.)
`
`2.
`
`Distributed Computing
`
`A distributed system, unlike a mainframe, involves multiple computers joined
`
`through a network. (White POR Decl. ¶ 32.) Although those computers can
`
`“communicate through a network that allows them to exchange data, divvy up work,
`
`and coordinate operations,” the presence of multiple computers in distributed
`
`systems brings problems of performance, reliability, timeliness, and fault-tolerance,
`
`among other problems. (Id. ¶¶ 32-33; Ex. 2026, at 12, 22.) For example, the
`
`individual components that make up a distributed system are usually less reliable
`
`than mainframe components. (White POR Decl. ¶ 33; Ex. 2026, at 23.) Further,
`
`bandwidth constraints and network unreliability could lead to delayed or lost
`
`messages between computers trying to work together. (White POR Decl. ¶ 34; Ex.
`
`2026, at 23.) As a result, ensuring performance and ordering transactions in a
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`
`distributed system were difficult, especially when the system was saturated with
`
`many users. (White POR Decl. ¶ 35; Ex. 2026, at 24.) Further, unlike mainframe
`
`systems, distributed systems can include multiple operating systems, which made
`
`managing distributed systems harder than managing a mainframe. (White POR
`
`Decl. ¶ 36; Ex. 2026, at 25.) More generally, distributed systems “add significant
`
`complexity to a system’s architecture versus a centralized system.” (White POR
`
`Decl. ¶ 38.)
`
`Those problems in distributed systems were absent from single-machine
`
`mainframe systems. (White POR Decl. ¶¶ 75-84.) Thus, one book recommended
`
`against building distributed systems unless strictly necessary: “Why do we need a
`
`distributed system to solve this problem? If you do not need a distributed system,
`
`do not distribute.” (Ex. 2026, at 26; see also White POR Decl. ¶ 37.)
`
`B. Applications and Advantages of the ’132 Patent
`
`The inventions of the ’132 Patent address saturation, prioritization, multiple
`
`operating systems, and heterogeneous equipment in distributed storage systems.
`
`(’132 Patent at 1:7-2:24; White POR Decl. ¶ 39.) The ’132 Patent describes that a
`
`“service class,” attributes of a file, and other metadata can be used in a distributed
`
`storage system to determine, for example, the allocation of client assets, the
`
`prioritization of operations on a file, and the type, location, and disaster
`
`recoverability of the storage where the file is stored. (’132 Patent at 3:9-12, 3:62-
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`
`4:4, 7:56-63, 11:10-27; White POR Decl. ¶ 40.) The inventions of the ’132 Patent
`
`therefore help address a key challenge in distributed storage systems: prioritizing
`
`resources and operations, especially when saturation occurs. (White POR Decl. ¶
`
`40.) The ’132 Patent further describes accommodating clients of different operating
`
`systems in a distributed storage system. (Id. ¶ 41.) Clients of different operating
`
`systems can be supported by, for example, translating attributes of a file or using a
`
`universal format readily understood regardless of operating system, such as a text
`
`file. (’132 Patent at 10:54-63; White POR Decl. ¶ 41.)
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`According to Dr. White, “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
`
`at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, or a similar discipline, along with two years of experience in the design,
`
`operation, or control of networked data management systems, and/or distributed
`
`storage systems. A more advanced degree can substitute for work experience and
`
`vice versa.” (White POR Decl. ¶ 47.) Although that level of ordinary skill is like
`
`Microsoft’s proposed level of ordinary skill in some respects, Daedalus Blue’s level
`
`of ordinary skill accounts for the ’132 Patent’s particular focus on distributed storage
`
`systems. (White POR Decl. ¶¶ 46-48; ’132 Patent at 1:7-2:16, 2:20-24.)
`
`By contrast, Microsoft’s proposed level of ordinary skill could imply that
`
`experience in distributed or other networked systems would have been unnecessary,
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`
`as reflected by the “or” in “two years of experience in the design, operation, or
`
`control of data management systems, storage systems, and/or distributed storage
`
`systems.” (Petition at 13; White POR Decl. ¶ 46.) In any event, Dr. White’s
`
`opinions and the arguments in this paper apply under either proposed level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. (White POR Decl. ¶ 49.)
`
`III. Claim Construction
`
`The Board construes the claims “in accordance with the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Below, Daedalus
`
`Blue expressly construes one claim term in accordance with that ordinary and
`
`customary meaning.
`
`A. All Challenged Claims: “a plurality of clients, the clients
`comprising at least two different computing platforms”
`
`The limitation “a plurality of clients, the clients comprising at least two
`
`different computing platforms” appears in independent Claims 15 and 23. Claims
`
`16-22 and 24-25 also include “a plurality of clients, the clients comprising at least
`
`two different computing platforms” because each of those claims depends from
`
`Claim 15 or Claim 23. Thus, every challenged claim includes that limitation.
`
`In the limitation “a plurality of clients, the clients comprising at least two
`
`different computing platforms,” the “plurality of clients” refers to clients in a
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`
`networked environment. (White POR Decl. ¶¶ 50-57.) Further, the “at least two
`
`different computing platforms” refer to operating systems. (Id. ¶¶ 50, 58-60.)
`
`Below, Daedalus Blue explains each of those aspects of “a plurality of clients, the
`
`clients comprising at least two different computing platforms” in turn.
`
`1.
`
`The claimed “plurality of clients” are clients in a networked
`environment.
`
`The ’132 Patent’s specification states without qualification or reservation that
`
`“the invention” involves networked, distributed systems. (’132 Patent at 1:7-10,
`
`2:20-24; White POR Decl. ¶¶ 52-53.) “More particularly, the invention relates to a
`
`system and method for policy-based data management on a distributed storage
`
`system.” (’132 Patent at 1:7-10.) And “[t]he system, method, and apparatus of the
`
`present invention have been developed in response to the present state of the art,
`
`and in particular, in response to the problems and needs in the art that have not yet
`
`been fully solved by currently available storage area network systems.” (Id. at 2:20-
`
`24.) A storage area network system is an example of a distributed storage system,
`
`and a distributed storage system involves a networked environment in which clients
`
`(such as workstations and servers) are connected to storage resources. (Id. at 1:17-
`
`23, 5:22-26; White POR Decl. ¶ 53.) Thus, “the invention” and “the present
`
`invention” involves clients in a networked environment.
`
`The ’132 Patent’s unequivocal statements that “the invention” and “the
`
`present invention” involves a networked, distributed system environment dictate the
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`
`meaning of the “plurality of clients.” “When a patent thus describes the features of
`
`the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention.”
`
`Regents Univ. Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 936 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`(quoting Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Hldgs. Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007)). And “[t]he public is entitled to take the patentee at his word and the
`
`word was that the invention” involves a networked distributed system environment.
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 453 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Thus,
`
`the claimed “plurality of clients” are clients in a networked environment.
`
`Further, “[i]n construing claims, the problem the inventor was attempting to
`
`solve, as discerned from the specification and the prosecution history, is a relevant
`
`consideration.” CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP, 112 F.3d 1146, 1160 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1997). The ’132 Patent’s specification shows that the problems the inventors sought
`
`to address were problems in distributed storage systems. (’132 Patent at 1:24-2:16;
`
`White POR Decl. ¶¶ 54-55.) It also states that “the present invention” was developed
`
`“in particular, in response to the problems and needs in the art that have not yet been
`
`fully solved by currently available storage area network systems.” (’132 Patent at
`
`2:20-24; White POR Decl. ¶ 56.) A storage area network system is an example of a
`
`distributed storage system, and a distributed storage system involves a networked
`
`environment. (’132 Patent at 1:17-20.) Because the inventors of the ’132 Patent
`
`addressed problems in the networked environments of distributed storage systems,
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`
`the “plurality of clients” refers to clients in a networked environment. (White POR
`
`Decl. ¶ 57.)
`
`So even though the Board preliminarily determined that the challenged claims
`
`do not require “a networked system,” the ’132 Patent’s specification shows that the
`
`“plurality of clients” in each of the challenged claims refers to clients in a networked
`
`environment. (Institution Decision at 16; White POR Decl. ¶¶ 51-57.) And the ’132
`
`Patent’s specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. The Board should therefore construe the claimed
`
`“plurality of clients” to refer to clients in a networked environment.
`
`2.
`
`The claimed “computing platforms” are operating systems.
`
`Both the claims and the specification of the ’132 Patent show that “the
`
`computing platforms” in “a plurality of clients, the clients comprising at least two
`
`different computing platforms” are operating systems. Turning first to the claims,
`
`“[o]ther claims of the patent in question . . . can be valuable sources of enlightenment
`
`as to the meaning of a claim term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. And here, Claims
`
`and 8 and 22 show that “computing platforms” refer to operating systems: “wherein
`
`the computing platforms are selected from the group consisting of Windows, AIX,
`
`Linux, Solaris, Unix, Mac OS, OS/2, DOS, HP, IRIX, and OS/390, wherein the
`
`method further comprises translating the one or more attributes.” (’132 Patent,
`
`Claims 8 and 22.) An ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that each of
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`
`the “computing platforms” listed in Claim 22—“Windows, AIX, Linux, Solaris,
`
`Unix, Mac OS, OS/2, DOS, HP, IRIX, and OS/390”—is an example of an operating
`
`system. (White POR Decl. ¶ 58; ’132 Patent at 5:19-29.)
`
`Likewise, the specification equates “computing platforms” with operating
`
`systems.
`
` It describes that the clients “may be workstations or servers
`
`communicating with workstations and in certain embodiments operate on a single
`
`platform or a plurality of different operating system platforms.” (’132 Patent at 5:22-
`
`26.) Then, the ’132 Patent provides examples of clients that are “Windows™
`
`based,” “Solaris™ based,” “run based on AIX®,” or “Linux-based.” (Id. at 5:26-
`
`29.) Each of those example clients involves a different operating system, confirming
`
`that the “at least two different computing platforms” that “the plurality of clients
`
`compris[es]” are operating systems. (White POR Decl. ¶ 58.)
`
`Finally, the term “computing platforms” should be construed to reflect the
`
`problems the inventors of the ’132 Patent sought to address. CVI/Beta Ventures, 112
`
`F.3d at 1160. A key problem that the inventors sought to address was that “current
`
`distributed storage systems are not capable of storing data using prioritized
`
`operations within multiple platforms. Typically, all of the computers on a distributed
`
`storage system must have the same type of operating system.” (’132 Patent at 1:40-
`
`43; see also id. at 2:6-16; White POR Decl. ¶ 59.)
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`
`Confirming the inventors’ occupation with that problem, the specification of
`
`the ’132 Patent also teaches how to overcome it. (White POR Decl. ¶ 59.) In
`
`particular, the specification describes techniques for overcoming interoperability
`
`problems between multiple operating systems, such as by providing information
`
`about a file in a universal format or translating platform-specific information about
`
`a file. (’132 Patent at Fig. 4, Fig. 9, 3:25-27, 9:29-34, 10:49-63, 14:23-32; White
`
`POR Decl. ¶ 59.) Because the ’132 Patent shows that the inventors sought to provide
`
`a distributed storage system that could support multiple operating systems, the
`
`claimed “computing platforms” in “at least two different computing platforms”
`
`should be construed to refer to operating systems. (White POR Decl. ¶¶ 59-60.)
`
`So, to recap, in the term “a plurality of clients, the clients comprising at least
`
`two different computing platforms,” the “plurality of clients” are clients in a
`
`networked environment, and the “computing platforms” are operating systems.
`
`IV. Ground 1: Microsoft failed to prove that Claims 15-21 and 23-25 would
`have been obvious over Gelb in view of Tivoli.
`
`A. Claims 15-21 and 23-25: Microsoft fail