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
`Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CHRISTOPHER JULES WHITE
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER DAEDALUS BLUE, LLC’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 1 of 56
`
`
`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
`Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CHRISTOPHER JULES WHITE
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER DAEDALUS BLUE, LLC’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 1 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`1. My name is Dr. Christopher Jules White, and I am currently an
`
`Associate Professor of Computer Science in the Department of Electrical
`
`Engineering and Computer Science, as well as the Associate Dean for Strategic
`
`Learning Programs at Vanderbilt University.
`
`2.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts and opinions set forth in this
`
`declaration, and, if called upon to do so, I would testify competently thereto.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked by Patent Owner Daedalus Blue, LLC (“Daedalus”)
`
`to provide my opinions and analysis responsive to certain issues raised by the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132 (“Petition”) by
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft” or “Petitioner”) and the supporting
`
`Declaration of Dr. Erez Zadok (“Zadok Declaration”). For this work I am being
`
`compensated at my normal hourly rate of $450 per hour plus reasonable expenses.
`
`The amount of my compensation is not dependent upon the substance of my
`
`opinions or upon the outcome of this matter. I am working as a private consultant
`
`on this matter and the opinions presented here are my own.
`
`4.
`
`I have prepared this declaration at the request of Daedalus and its
`
`counsel. For purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to provide my
`
`opinions on certain aspects of Petitioner’s theories regarding patentability of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,671,132 (“the ’132 patent”) as it relates to this IPR proceeding. If an
`
`1
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 2 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inter partes review is instituted, I reserve the right to provide additional opinions
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`on the state of the art, the cited references in the Petition, the obviousness
`
`arguments presented in the Petition, the validity of the ’132 Patent claims in light
`
`of the cited references under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and/or 103, claim construction, and
`
`any other issues arising in connection with the Petition and these proceedings.
`
`5.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied on my knowledge and
`
`experience in computer science, hardware and software design, and wireless
`
`communication systems, and on the documents and information described below. I
`
`have also relied on my work experience with Ziiio, Optio Labs, Cloudpoint/PAR
`
`Works, and IBM. I may also review other materials throughout this case,
`
`including other documents or testimony that may emerge in this case. Those
`
`materials may affect my opinions in this matter.
`
`6.
`
`I reserve the right to modify and supplement my analysis and
`
`conclusions set forth in this declaration based upon any additional evidence,
`
`briefing, or decisions submitted in these proceedings. I also reserve the right to
`
`modify and supplement my analysis and conclusions set forth in this declaration
`
`based upon any change to any of the applicable legal standards explained to me by
`
`Daedalus’ counsel.
`
`2
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 3 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`7.
`
`I have over 20 years of experience in computer science and computer
`
`engineering. I received a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science from Brown
`
`University, and a Master of Science and Ph.D. in Computer Science from
`
`Vanderbilt University. I am currently an Associate Professor of Computer Science
`
`in the Department of Computer Science at Vanderbilt University. I was also
`
`previously an Assistant Professor in Computer Engineering at Virginia Tech.
`
`8.
`
`I have also held a variety of positions within industry and in affiliation
`
`with Federally-supported research labs. Proceeding in reverse chronological order:
`
`From 2012-2015, I was Chief Technology Officer of Optio Labs, Inc., a company
`
`that I co-founded. From 2012-2016, I was the Chief Scientist of Cloudpoint Labs, a
`
`company that I co-founded. From 2011-2012, I was a Visiting Research Scientist
`
`at the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, a Federally-funded research
`
`and development center. From 2001-2002, I worked as a software engineer at IBM.
`
`9.
`
` I have published over 130 papers on topics ranging from mobile
`
`computing to cyber-security to cloud computing. According to Google Scholar,
`
`there are 5,351 citations to these papers. In addition to publishing on a variety of
`
`research topics, I have received several important distinctions. I received a
`
`National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER Award, which is one of the NSF’s
`
`“most prestigious awards in support of early-career faculty who have the potential
`
`3
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 4 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to serve as academic role models in research and education and to lead advances in
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`the mission of their department or organization.” I have also received several Best
`
`Paper Awards for research work in domains ranging from Software Product-lines
`
`to Civil Engineering.
`
`10. As a faculty member, I run the Mobile Application computinG,
`
`optimizatoN, and secUrity Methods (MAGNUM) Group at Vanderbilt University.
`
`As a Principal Investigator or Co-Principal Investigator, I have received over
`
`$17,000,000 in grant support, both from Federal entities, such as the National
`
`Science Foundation (NSF), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
`
`(DARPA), Air Force Research Labs (AFRL), and Office of Naval Research
`
`(ONR), and private entities, such as Varian Medical Systems and NOAH
`
`Basketball. My research focuses on securing, optimizing, and leveraging data from
`
`mobile cyber-physical systems. My mobile cyber- physical systems research spans
`
`four key focus areas: (1) mobile, cloud, and CPS security and data collection, (2)
`
`high-precision mobile understanding of the world through indoor positioning and
`
`augmented reality, (3) CPS, mobile device and cloud infrastructure power and
`
`configuration optimization, and (4) applications of mobile cyber-physical systems
`
`in multi-disciplinary domains, including manufacturing, energy-optimized cloud
`
`computing, smart grid systems, healthcare/manufacturing security, next-generation
`
`construction technologies, citizen science, and augmented reality.
`
`4
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 5 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11. My research work has been transitioned to industry where it has both
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`won patent protection and led to venture-backed startup companies. My work on
`
`securing mobile devices was licensed into Optio Labs, a company that I co-
`
`founded. Optio Labs received over $10,000,000 in venture capital backing. My
`
`work on mobile augmented reality was licensed into PAR Works / Cloudpoint
`
`Labs, a company that I co-founded. The company received $1,000,000 in venture
`
`backing and won awards, such as being an Innovation Award Honoree at CES and
`
`a finalist for Technical Achievement Award at SXSW. I am an inventor on
`
`multiple patents.
`
`12. Attached hereto as Appendix A is a true and correct copy of my
`
`Curriculum Vitae describing my background and experience.
`
`III.
`
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`
`13.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed and considered, in addition
`
`to my knowledge and experience noted above, the following materials:
`
`a. Microsoft Corporation Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,671,132 (“Petition”) & Exhibits Thereto;
`
`b. U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132 (“the ’132 patent”);
`
`c. U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132 File History;
`
`d. Declaration of Dr. Erez Zadok (“Zadok Declaration”);
`
`14.
`
`I have also reviewed and relied upon the materials cited herein.
`
`5
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 6 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`15.
`
`I understand that the Petition proposed a level of skill for a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). I understand that the Petition indicates that a
`
`POSITA “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 data management
`
`systems, storage systems, and/or distributed storage systems” and that “[a] more
`
`advanced degree can substitute for work experience and vice versa.” Petition, 13.
`
`16. For the purpose of this Declaration, I have applied this level of skill to
`
`evaluate the Petition Grounds.
`
`V. UNDERSTANDINGS OF LAW
`
`17.
`
`I am informed and understand that a claim is unpatentable if it is
`
`anticipated by the prior art. I am further informed and understand that a claim is
`
`anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found
`
`expressly or inherently described, in a single art reference. I also understand that a
`
`single reference cannot merely disclose each element of a claim to be found to
`
`anticipate. Rather it must disclose all of the elements as arranged in the claim.
`
`18.
`
`I am further informed and understand that anticipation by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence requires a showing that a person could make and
`
`use the claimed invention by looking at one reference. I also understand that a
`
`6
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 7 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`requirement of a claim that is missing from a prior art reference may be disclosed
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`inherently if that missing requirement is necessarily present in the reference. I am
`
`further informed and understand that the reference to be considered anticipatory
`
`must enable and describe the claimed invention sufficiently to have placed it in the
`
`possession of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`19.
`
`I am informed and understand that evaluating obviousness requires
`
`assessing if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are
`
`such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious in light of
`
`prior art. I am further informed and understand that a number of factors are to be
`
`considered in that determination, including determining the scope and content of
`
`the prior art, ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art, and determining the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. I am
`
`further informed and understand that in evaluating obviousness, a variety of
`
`rationales may support an obviousness determination. For example, I understand
`
`that obviousness may be supported by rationales such as combining known prior
`
`art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, or simple
`
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. I also
`
`understand that obviousness can be supported where there was a teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led a POSITA to modify
`
`a prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the
`
`7
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 8 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claimed invention. I am further informed and understand that there must be a
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a
`
`combination would be successful in order to support a conclusion of obviousness.
`
`I further understand that a reference may “teach away” from a claimed invention,
`
`and that “teaching away” cuts against arguments that a claimed invention would
`
`have been obvious and supports non-obviousness. I understand that a reference
`
`“teaches away” from a claimed invention when a POSITA would have been
`
`discouraged from following the reference’s path, or would be led in a direction
`
`different from the path taken in the claimed invention.
`
`20.
`
`I am informed and understand that in order for a reference to be relied
`
`on to demonstrate obviousness, it must be “analogous art” to the invention argued
`
`to be obvious. I further am informed and understand that a reference can be
`
`“analogous art” in two ways. The first way is if the reference is “from the same
`
`field of endeavor” as the patent. In that case, a reference can be analogous art even
`
`if it addresses a different problem, as long as it is in the same field. The second
`
`way is if the reference is “reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the
`
`inventor.” In that second case, the reference need not be in the same field of
`
`endeavor as the claimed invention that is argued to render obvious. I am further
`
`informed and understand that in order to be “reasonably pertinent,” a reference
`
`“logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering
`
`8
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 9 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`his problem.” I am also informed and understand that, in evaluating whether a
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`reference would have been reasonably pertinent to the problem the invention seeks
`
`to solve, the “purposes of both the invention and the prior art are important,” and if
`
`the prior art is directed to a different purpose than the claimed invention, an
`
`inventor would “have had less motivation or occasion to consider it.”
`
`VI. THE PRIOR ART
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 5,018,060 (“Gelb”)
`21. U.S. Patent No. 5,018,060 (“Gelb”) is titled “Allocating Data Storage
`
`Space of Peripheral Data Storage Devices Using Implied Allocation Based on User
`
`Parameters.” EX1005, 1. According to the information on the face of the patent,
`
`Gelb was filed on January 26, 1989, issued on May 21, 1991, and assigned to IBM.
`
`22. Based on my review of the specification, Gelb is directed to an IBM
`
`mainframe with data storage devices directly attached to the mainframe. EX1005,
`
`1:8-14, 1:22-30. Job Control Language (JCL), which is discussed at 1:49-59 and
`
`elsewhere, is the name of scripting languages used on IBM mainframe operating
`
`systems at the time of Gelb’s filing. IBM patents, papers, and products are cited
`
`throughout the Background of the Invention. EX1005, 2:5-31, 2:52-3:29, 3:46-53,
`
`3:65-4:11. IBM products are also used to refer to exemplary components, user
`
`interfaces, and code excerpts. Id., 6:8-40, 10:25-39, 11:51-57, 15:64-16:59. Figures
`
`4-5 are also an illustration of an IBM mainframe system. Id., Figs. 4-5.
`
`9
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 10 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`“Tivoli Storage Manager: A Technical Introduction” (“Tivoli”)
`B.
`23. Tivoli is a document entitled “Tivoli Storage Manager: A Technical
`
`Introduction” (“Tivoli”). EX1006, 1. I understand that Petitioner contends that
`
`Tivoli “was published and publicly accessible at least by June 15, 2001 and no
`
`later than November 28, 2001.” Petition, 16-17. Tivoli states that it is a “high-
`
`level technical introduction to Tivoli Storage Manager.” EX1006, 4.
`
`24. Tivoli purports to describe a distributed system comprised of multiple
`
`client systems, “including laptop computers, PCs, workstations, or server systems,”
`
`connected by a network to a Tivoli Storage Manager server, Tivoli Storage
`
`Manager database, and storage repositories. See e.g., EX1006, 7-12, 14-16.
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 7,269,612 (“Devarakonda”)
`25. U.S. Patent No. 7,269,612 (“Devarakonda”) is titled “Method,
`
`System, and Program for a Policy Based Storage Manager.” EX1008, 1.
`
`According to the information on the face of the patent, Devarakonda was filed on
`
`May 31, 2002, issued on September 11, 2007, and assigned to IBM.
`
`VII. PETITIONER’S GROUNDS 1 AND 2: GELB IN VIEW OF TIVOLI
`
`26.
`
`I understand that Petitioner challenges claims 15-21 and 23-25 as
`
`obvious over Gelb in view of Tivoli and the knowledge of a POSITA (Ground 1),
`
`and further challenges claim 22 as obvious over Gelb in view of Tivoli and
`
`Callaghan and the knowledge of a POSITA (Ground 2). See Petition, 20, 41.
`
`10
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 11 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27.
`
`I further understand that Petitioner relies on Gelb combined with
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`Tivoli to teach certain limitations of the independent challenged claims, including
`
`“receiving one or more attributes of a file from one of a plurality of clients, the
`
`clients comprising at least two different computing platforms” in Claims 15, 23.
`
`A. Motivation to Combine Gelb and Tivoli
`28. Petitioner states that “Gelb and Tivoli are a natural combination”
`
`(Petition, 35) because they both “describe storage management systems that have
`
`similar structures, purposes, and functions” (Petition, 37). I disagree. Gelb and
`
`Tivoli represent entirely different types of computing systems with very different
`
`requirements and would not make sense to combine. In my opinion, at the time of
`
`the invention, a POSITA would not have chosen to modify Gelb’s single-machine
`
`architecture with specific aspects of Tivoli’s architecture for backing up data.
`
`29. Gelb is focused on Job Control Language (JCL) programs for a
`
`mainframe—a single machine architecture with a single operating system, and
`
`directly attached peripheral storage. Mainframes are large computers that are
`
`typically used in systems where the system designer is willing to incur extra
`
`hardware costs to run the system on a single machine and avoid the complexities of
`
`using a multiple machines in a distributed architecture. Mainframes at the time
`
`generally had significant processing power, memory, cache, and I/O bandwidth to
`
`communicate with storage devices directly-connected to their buses. See EX1005,
`
`11
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 12 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1:8-14, 5:19-21, 5:31-37, 15:52-17:15, Figs. 4-5. The name is derived from ‘main
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`frame,’ the cabinet traditionally used to house such computers. EX2011, 3.
`
`30. Tivoli, in contrast, is a backup/archive system for heterogeneous
`
`enterprise network environments that include multiple operating systems. See
`
`EX1006, 4, 7. Tivoli’s architecture is based upon using network links with limited
`
`bandwidth to connect a set of client workstations with different operating systems,
`
`storage management servers, and storage devices. Id. Separate application clients
`
`are used on each workstation to connect to the storage management server. Id., 13.
`
`31. Gelb and Tivoli employ two completely different types of computing
`
`systems: Gelb is a homogeneous single-machine mainframe system; Tivoli is a
`
`heterogeneous distributed system built on a more resource-constrained network. A
`
`POSITA would consider these to be very different systems that are architecturally
`
`incompatible.
`
`32. Gelb and Tivoli are designed to solve two entirely different computing
`
`tasks. Gelb is designed for high-capacity high-performance computing with the
`
`actively used copy of data. Tivoli is designed for off-hours backup, archive, and
`
`disaster recovery. Id., 7. The task of backing up data is inherently a low-priority
`
`task without strict performance needs. A backup copy of a file is not the actively
`
`accessed copy and does not have many requirements, other than being available
`
`when needed in a disaster. Id., 16-17. The backup copy is not actively accessed and
`
`12
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 13 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`instead needs to be “restored” before it can used by a client workstation. Id. Thus,
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`Tivoli is meant to solve at an entirely different problem than Gelb. A POSITA
`
`would not consider them to be “similar.”
`
`33. Petitioner claims that both Gelb and Tivoli “have an administrative
`
`component and a client component” (Petition, 37). This statement is incorrect.
`
`Gelb does not discuss the “clients” described in the patent. The “clients” in the
`
`patent are part of a distributed system where “client” refers to computing elements
`
`that are talking to the system through a network and capable of running on
`
`different computing platforms. As described above, Gelb is built on a single-
`
`machine mainframe architecture that is not distributed. Since Gelb does not have a
`
`distributed system architecture, it cannot be referring to the same “clients.”
`
`34.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would not have been motivated to modify
`
`Gelb based on the teachings in Tivoli because these fundamental differences in
`
`system architecture and purpose are incompatible with each other. Gelb does not
`
`describe key elements of Tivoli’s system architecture (distributed, heterogeneous,
`
`networked). Further, there is nothing in Gelb that suggests looking toward Tivoli
`
`for teachings, which makes sense since it is a distributed system architecture.
`
`35. Petitioner argues that Gelb and Tivoli are “sufficiently related and
`
`complementary to yield a successful combination of elements.” Petition, 37. I
`
`disagree. For example, Tivoli’s client applications (i.e., the applications on the
`
`13
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 14 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`client workstations) are designed to backup data, which is (1) inherently a low
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`priority task without strict performance or prioritization requirements, (2) usually
`
`done on an incremental and/or whole disk basis (i.e., not on a file basis), and (3)
`
`has nothing to do with the actively used copy of data used for computing tasks on
`
`the clients. A POSITA would recognize that Tivoli would lack the performance,
`
`prioritization, and careful distributed resource management needed to be successful
`
`in supporting high performance applications like those in the mainframe in Gelb.
`
`36.
`
`In addition, Gelb’s high-performance applications are designed for a
`
`homogeneous computing platform with a single operating system, and thus the
`
`“administration component” is not designed to facilitate cross-platform operations.
`
`Gelb does not teach how this “administration component” would manage cross-
`
`platform differences or nuances. A POSITA would not have considered Tivoli’s
`
`disclosure of client workstations of different operating systems to have utility in
`
`Gelb or that Tivoli provide needed information to modify Gelb’s “administration
`
`component” to handle cross-platform issues.
`
`37. Petitioner attempts to draw parallels between the policies and classes
`
`in Gelb and Tivoli. But the only classes shared are management classes. Tivoli
`
`does not have (or disclose) data classes or storage classes like Gelb. In addition,
`
`there is no concept of service in Tivoli, particularly regarding performance goals,
`
`which typically weren’t a major concern of backup systems at the time. It would be
`
`14
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 15 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`
`non-obvious to a POSITA to combine such dissimilar systems, one system
`
`designed to meet performance and other needs of storing and accessing “primary”
`
`data on a single system and computing platform with a client-server backup
`
`solution that is fundamentally not designed for performance or even dealing with
`
`access to the primary data (e.g., concerned with managing the “backup” secondary
`
`copy).
`
`38. To build a distributed client system that supports high-performance
`
`applications like those to which Gelb is directed, a POSITA would have
`
`recognized that the client must be capable of managing allocation across multiple
`
`computing platforms and network components. The ’132 patent explicitly
`
`discusses how clients on multiple platforms participate in resource allocation of a
`
`diverse set of resources, ranging from cache, to I/O, to network traffic
`
`prioritization. In contrast, a POSITA considering Tivoli would have understood
`
`that Tivoli does not sufficiently address or describe these issues, because Tivoli is
`
`a document addressed to a backup system, and is not directed to supporting high
`
`performance applications across multiple computing platforms and network
`
`components. In other words, Tivoli would not enable a POSITA to successfully
`
`implement a client capable of supporting Gelb’s applications across multiple
`
`computing platforms and network components.
`
`15
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 16 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`39. A POSITA would have considered that, contrary to what the Petition
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`states (Petition, 37), applying a client architecture not designed for performance
`
`(Tivoli) to a system that supports high-performance data access (Gelb) would
`
`likely yield a worse system. When systems with fundamentally diverging
`
`requirements are combined, the result is often a worse performing system that
`
`meets none of the needs of either individual system. A POSITA would have
`
`recognized the fundamental importance of only combining systems with
`
`compatible requirements and goals.
`
`40. Petitioner argues that a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`transform Gelb’s system in view of Tivoli by (1) moving the ‘application
`
`programs’ in Gelb to “a client computer system instead of in the same system as
`
`the storage management software” (Petition, 38); (2) modify it further so that “the
`
`client computers may use different operating systems,” which would require
`
`modifying the application programs so that they can work on different operating
`
`systems (Petition, 39); and (3) transforming Gelb’s storage manager into an open
`
`systems model so that it can work with diverse storage resources (Petition, 40). In
`
`other words, Petitioner proposes changing the entire system architecture of Gelb.
`
`41. Petitioner (and its expert) argue that these changes would have been
`
`simple, straightforward, “standard practice,” and “easily accomplished.” Petition,
`
`39-41. I completely disagree. For example, it is incorrect to state that “[a] POSITA
`
`16
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 17 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would have easily created versions of the client software to accommodate multiple
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`operating systems.” Petition, 41. A software solution that works on multiple
`
`operating systems is typically described as “cross-platform.” In the early-2000s,
`
`creating solutions that were cross-platform was extremely difficult. The assertion
`
`by Petitioner fails to properly account for the vast complexity of attempting to
`
`develop software for multiple computing platforms, each of which has different
`
`resources, application programming interfaces, data formats, and many other
`
`distinctions. Especially for performance sensitive applications like in Gelb, these
`
`differences are critical and commonly necessitate writing multiple independent
`
`code bases, which vastly increases cost and complexity, while significantly
`
`reducing the chance of success. Tivoli does not provide the information that a
`
`POSITA would have needed to navigate these complexities and successfully build
`
`a cross-platform client solution for Gelb.
`
`42. Petitioner claims a POSITA would have had a reasonable chance of
`
`success in modifying Gelb in view of Tivoli in this way. I disagree. Gelb describes
`
`a system designed for a single machine. It is rarely, if ever, possible to directly
`
`translate a single machine solution into a distributed system without solving a
`
`number of complex issues, ranging from timing to synchronization to messaging
`
`unreliability. These issues are particularly important (and difficult) when trying to
`
`17
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 18 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`design a distributed system to meet the performance requirements of application
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`programs like those that run on Gelb. These issues include, but are not limited to:
`
`a.
`
`Unlike single-machine systems, distributed systems have
`
`unreliable messaging between elements of the system, so a POSITA cannot
`
`directly apply single-machine solutions to distributed systems or architectures.
`
`Whereas in a single machine system, messages sent between system components,
`
`such as processes, are highly reliable, messages in distributed systems can and do
`
`fail to be delivered. Distributed systems that are not designed to account for lost
`
`messages, for example by resending messages, fail to operate properly.
`
`b.
`
`Unlike single-machine systems, distributed systems often have
`
`clients on different computing platforms, which in turn have completely different
`
`mechanisms for controlling resources like RAM, I/O capacity, networking, that
`
`would make a single machine solution inappropriate. Heterogeneous distributed
`
`system architectures must provide mechanisms for mapping from high-level goals
`
`down to the individual capabilities of clients. System architectures that do not
`
`account for differences in resource handling and capability do not perform well.
`
`c.
`
`Unlike single-machine systems, the networks underlying
`
`distributed systems have more limited bandwidth than the internal buses on a
`
`single machine. The bandwidth constraints in a heterogeneous distributed system
`
`typically necessitate optimization of message size, frequency, as well as bandwidth
`
`18
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 19 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`allocation to individual clients, otherwise network links quickly become saturated
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`and degrade overall performance. Single machine architectures that do not account
`
`for limitations in network bandwidth often fail in heterogeneous distributed
`
`systems.
`
`d.
`
`Unlike single-machine systems, the networks underlying
`
`distributed systems often have higher latency than internal bus communication on a
`
`single machine. Latency creates timing delays that can significantly slow down a
`
`computational process if not considered properly in the protocols supporting a
`
`storage system. For example, communication protocols that rely on lots of back
`
`and forth communication may introduce little overhead on a single machine but
`
`yield dramatic slowdowns when between machines over a high latency network.
`
`e.
`
`Unlike single-machine systems, scheduling in distributed
`
`systems, especially those with diverse operating systems, is more difficult. A
`
`single machine can easily see the state of the workloads and plan / optimize
`
`scheduling decisions to meet performance goals. In a heterogeneous distributed
`
`system, the workload state needed to support decision making for the system is
`
`spread across numerous computing systems and can be difficult to capture.
`
`f.
`
`Unlike single-machine systems, timing of resource management
`
`operations are much more difficult on a distributed system and require advancing
`
`planning and synchronization across clients. Because of the unreliable messaging,
`
`19
`
`IPR2021-00831
`
`Daedalus EX2001
`Page 20 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`latency, and challenges capturing overall state, making sure actions have been
`
`IPR2021-00831
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`communicated and completed in a distributed system can be very difficult.
`
`g.
`
`Unlike single-machine systems where there is no need for
`
`consensus, in a distributed system where the actors all have to arrive at a consensus
`
`about what should be done, different parts of the system may think that the system
`
`is in a different state due to communication issues, delays, etc. Single machine
`
`approaches do not consider these types of issues.
`
`h.
`
`Unlike in a single-machine system, in a distributed system,
`
`geographic, network, and placement location matters a great deal. For example, if
`
`two parts of the system are connected via a high-bandwidth low-latency computing
`
`link, they are likely to perform much better than if separated by a low-bandwidth,
`
`high-latency link. For computing elements that do not directly communicate often,
`
`it may be fine to use the lower quality link so that it can be reserved for portions of
`
`the system that have greater communication demands. Moreover, the geographic
`
`distance between the machines that the elements are placed on can impact the
`
`communication latency, message loss rate, and overall reliability of the system.
`
`i.
`
`Unlike in a single-machine system, release and cleanup of
`
`resources is more complex in distributed systems. For example, limited network
`
`traffic from a client may make it look like the client has finished with the resources
`
`allocated to it, but th
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
