Case IPR2021-00831
`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
`
`
`
`
`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
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
