Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 50
`Entered: September 16, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DAEDALUS BLUE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`_____________________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: Wednesday, August 10, 2022
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, HYUN J. JUNG, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 50
`Entered: September 16, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DAEDALUS BLUE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`_____________________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: Wednesday, August 10, 2022
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, HYUN J. JUNG, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JARED BOBROW, ESQUIRE
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, California 94025
`(650) 614-7400
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`KEVIN K. McNISH, ESQUIRE
`McNISH PLLC
`254 Commercial Street, Suite 245
`Portland, Maine 04101
`(207) 800-3400
`
`
`ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`DENISE DE MORY, ESQUIRE
`BUNSOW DE MORY LLP
`701 El Camino Real
`Redwood City, California 94063
`(650) 351-7248
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, August
`10, 2022, commencing at 10:46 a.m. EST, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, Madison Building-East Wing, 600 Dulany Street, 9th Floor,
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS
` JUDGE MEDLEY: So we're on the record, and this
`is going to be a separate transcript. Just for -- for
`everyone.
` Good morning. This is the hearing for
`IPR2021-00831, between Petitioner, Microsoft
`Corporation, and Patent Owner, Daedalus Blue, involving
`U.S. Patent Number 8,671,132.
` I am Judge Medley, and with me are Judges Jung
`and Peslak.
` At this time, I'd like the parties to introduce
`counsel for the record, beginning with Petitioner.
` MR. BOBROW: Yes. Good morning again, Your
`Honors. This is Jared Bobrow. I represent the
`Petitioner, Microsoft Corporation.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Sorry, just one moment. I just
`want to make sure that Judge Peslak can hear us. He
`signaled that he wasn't able to.
` Can you hear us? Are --
` Okay. He still cannot hear us. Pat, do you
`want to check what to do?
` (Pause.)
` JUDGE MEDLEY: All right. Can you hear us now?
` Okay. Can --
` THE TECHNICIAN: He should be able to hear.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Great. Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
` All right. Let's resume, then.
` Patent Owner, could you please present or state
`your name for the record, please.
` MR. McNISH: Good morning, Your Honors. Kevin
`McNish from McNish PLLC for Patent Owner, Daedalus Blue,
`LLC. With me is Denise De Mory, from Bunsow De Mory,
`LLP.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you.
` I'd like to remind the parties that this
`hearing is open to the public, and a resulting
`transcript will be available to the public.
` Each party has 45 minutes total time to present
`arguments. Petitioner will proceed first, and may
`reserve some of its argument time to respond to
`arguments presented by Patent Owner. Thereafter, Patent
`Owner will respond to Petitioner's presentation and may
`reserve argument time for surrebuttal.
` Petitioner, do you wish to reserve some of your
`time to respond?
` MR. BOBROW: Yes, thank you, Your Honor. 15
`minutes.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
` And Patent Owner?
` MR. McNISH: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to
`reserve 12 minutes for rebuttal -- surrebuttal.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: All right. Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
` So we received an email regarding the parties'
`objections to certain slides. We will take the
`objections under advisement, so no need to repeat the
`objections during the hearing.
` We remind the parties that demonstratives are
`not a mechanism for making the arguments, but are visual
`aids to a party's oral presentations regarding arguments
`and evidence previously presented and discussed in the
`papers and exhibits of record.
` Petitioner, you may proceed.
` MR. BOBROW: Thank you, Your Honors.
` There are a number of issues that have been
`presented in the papers, and I would like to begin by
`addressing a claim construction issue that came up in
`the Patent Owner's response, and to which we replied.
` And so I'd like to turn to beginning at slide
`14. And the dispute relates to the construction of the
`term, computing platform. And in the -- I believe it
`was in the Patent Owner Preliminary Response, and
`thereafter, the position by the Patent Owner, turning to
`slide 15, was that, this phrase, computing platform, is
`limited only to an operating system. That's it.
`Nothing more is embodied or encompassed within that
`phrase, computing platform. We submit that that
`construction is in error, and that instead, a computing
`platform includes a computer hardware as well as the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`operating system.
` And turning to slide 16. In response to that
`construction that was advanced by Patent Owner,
`Microsoft submitted some evidence that talks about what
`that term, computing platform, means in this field. And
`as set forth in slide 16, there is a computer dictionary
`definition from Microsoft which says that what it means
`is quote, The type of computer or operating system being
`used. So the type of computer is embraced within this
`idea of a computing platform.
` Turning now to slide 17. There is nothing in
`the specification that treats the term any differently.
`The specification uses the term, computing platform, but
`it does so in the context of translating and formatting
`files. It doesn't talk about it in any way that
`suggests that the term is restricted only to an
`operating system. And in fact, we submit the opposite,
`because --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Could you spend some moments
`talking about claims 8 and 22. And because those are
`part of the specification too, correct? And the
`argument that those claims inform what an operator --
`what a computing platform should -- should --
`mean.
` MR. BOBROW: Yes, Your Honor. And those claims
`talk about specific operating systems, whether it's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`Windows, or Unix, or what have you. And what that claim
`is about, it's about what a computing platform has, not
`what a computer platform or computing platform is. So
`what the claim is about is if I have a computing
`platform, and that computing platform has Windows in it,
`then, it's covered by the claim. If I have a computing
`platform, and it has Unix in it, it's covered. If
`there's a workstation that has Windows in it, covered.
`If it has -- if it's a handheld device, not a
`workstation, it has Windows, also covered.
` So what that claim is about is it's saying,
`look, computing platforms have operating systems, and if
`a particular computing platform has a Windows or a Unix,
`or what have you, the other ones that are listed, then,
`it's covered. It's not saying that the computing
`platform is definitionally limited to only the operating
`system.
` And I think that the specification, Your Honor,
`at slide 18 does inform that discussion of that
`understanding, because the patent -- the patentee here
`took the time to use the phrase, computing platform, in
`the specification and in the claims, but also used the
`phrase, operating system platform, in the specification.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: So I have a question. Does this
`issue even matter with respect to grounds 1 and 2?
` MR. BOBROW: No, Your Honor, I don't believe
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`that it does. This is -- this is a construction issue
`that I -- as I understand it, it really relates to
`ground 3 relating to Devarakonda.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you.
` MR. BOBROW: So the operating system platform
`was the term that the specification used to talk about
`the operating system, not computing platform. Clearly,
`the patent expresses a difference here. There's a
`difference in use, a difference in meaning, and we
`submit that computing platform is not limited to the
`operating system only.
` Let me turn if -- unless there are other
`questions about that issue, let me turn to the dispute
`about Gelb.
` As Your Honors' are aware, there are two
`grounds that use Gelb as a reference. Gelb is then
`modified by the teachings of Tivoli, and then, for one
`claim the teachings of Callaghan.
` The argument by the Patent Owner is that Gelb,
`they say, is not analogous art. And we submit that Gelb
`is analogous art, not on one basis, but two. As the
`Board knows, analogous art, that can be met either by
`showing that the prior art is in the same field as the
`patent, or that essentially, it's dealing with a problem
`that's pertinent to the --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Before you get into that, I have
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`a question.
` So that other claim construction issue that you
`didn't mention is plurality of clients?
` MR. BOBROW: Yes.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: It appears to me from reading
`everything that plurality of clients, that construction
`with respect to grounds 1 and 2, it's not so much an
`issue other than with respect to Gelb being in the same
`field of endeavor. Is that correct?
` MR. BOBROW: That's how I understand the Patent
`Owner's argument. That the -- the argument seems to be
`that they want to say that these plurality of clients
`have to be in a quote, unquote, Networked environment
`for them to be a plurality of clients. And I -- as I
`understand it, that that is essentially saying, Yeah,
`Gelb isn't analogous. But again, we -- we submit that
`-- that certainly, plurality of clients stands on its
`own, and plurality of clients in the claim, nowhere is
`mentioned anything about a networked environment.
` And I would add for your -- Your Honors the
`point that reading in this idea that -- that the
`plurality of clients have to be in a network, networked
`environment, is actually contrary to the specification
`of the patent. Because the patent at column 14, line 65
`to 15, line 1, it actually says that, The description is
`not limiting, and that the scope of the claims is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`indicated by the claims rather than by the written
`description.
` So the specification actually took pains to say
`when you're looking at how to construe the claims, don't
`look at the description; look at the claims. And what
`Patent Owner is trying to do is say, Let's read in
`embodiments, networked embodiments from the
`specification into the claims, which is improper in all
`events, but particularly, in light of the expressed
`language of the patent.
` So turning back to the -- the Gelb question and
`whether Gelb was analogous. Gelb is certainly in the
`same field as the ’132 Patent. So at slide 21, you can
`see figure 1 of Gelb, which has not a single host
`processor but it has multiple host processors. And it
`describes its configuration as having those multiple
`host processors, and they share peripheral devices, and
`there are multiple peripheral storage devices that are
`shown in Fig. 5. And they do so over a plurality of
`input, output connections that are shown as I -- element
`11 in Fig. 1.
` So certainly, under the standard that the
`Patent Owner set forth, that distributed systems involve
`systems that include multiple machines, that's certainly
`met. There are a plurality of host processors clearly
`described.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
` And what's more, there is evidence in the
`record showing that yes, distributed systems, and that
`phrase, distributed systems, has a broad meaning, not
`the narrow meaning to which the Patent Owner wants to
`limit it. Not only does it cover things like wide area
`networks, but it also covers things like strongly, or
`very strongly coupled systems such as multiprocessor
`systems. That's precisely the system of Gelb. It's a
`multiprocessor system, not a single processor system.
`So Gelb certainly is in the field of distributed storage
`systems.
` Turning to slide 23, you can see in Fig. 5 that
`there is a distributed storage system, there are a
`plurality of storage devices that are connected over a
`plurality of channels, to that multiplicity of -- of
`multiple processors.
` So looking at the system of Gelb, it's
`distributed, and according to the straightforward
`definition of the network, also networked, because it's
`a group of computers, the host processors, and
`associated devices, which are these storage devices of
`Fig. 5, and they're connected by communication
`facilities, namely those channels which are shown at
`element 38 of Fig. 5.
` Gelb is also analogous because it's pertinent
`to the problem. There is a problem that was presented
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`in the ’132 Patent about having -- the prior art didn't
`deal with files by looking at different storage
`requirements, performance requirements, and the like.
`So that's one of the problems that the ’132 Patent is
`trying to address. You have the file, and let's deal
`with it in a way that addresses performance and other
`issues about that -- about that file.
` Gelb deals with the same problem. In column 1
`of the patent, Gelb is specifically addressing this
`issue talking about the problem of data and storage
`management in the prior art, and how it was
`unsatisfactory, and how Gelb wanted to move to an
`environment in which you accounted for things like
`performance and reliability, and how quickly you're
`retrieving a file, and the size of the file that you're
`retrieving. And so the same problem that the -- the
`’132 Patent was addressing is also being addressed by
`Gelb.
` The idea that somehow this patent is only
`dealing with problems associated with specific computer
`languages or specific computer types like mainframes,
`that really misses the point. The broader picture is
`outlined in the -- the background leading to this --
`this patent, and it identifies problems with storage.
`Much more broadly than is being described by the -- by
`the Patent Owner.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
` Let me now turn to another issue which has to
`do with motivation to combine. The motivation here --
`let me first address the issue of motivation to combine
`Gelb with Tivoli, which starts at our slide 29. And
`turning, then, to slide 30, the Petition articulated
`strong and detailed motivations to combine Gelb with
`Tivoli. That's sets forth in over six pages of the
`Petition, as well as the declaration of Dr. Zadok. And
`essentially, the story here and the motivation here is
`we have two references. Both by IBM, both dealing with
`IBM products, both dealing with policy based data
`storage. Tivoli deals with policy based data storage,
`Gelb deals with policy based data storages. And both of
`these systems have -- you can think of it as that data
`storage management element, and it has essentially a
`program element where these programs are creating the
`files, and they're submitting the files and whatnot, and
`then, the question is how do you deal with those
`numbers.
` And the combination and the motivation to
`combine is to say that Gelb would look to Tivoli, which
`was a very well-known system at the time, a very
`well-known prior art system, and you would look to that
`client server, that basic client server architecture,
`and also the open elements of that architecture that
`allow it to work with a multiplicity of different
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`systems and a multiplicity of different clients. And
`you would look at that to modify Gelb to say Gelb has
`all of these great algorithms for dealing with storage
`on a policy basis, and now, all you need to do is
`essentially have those algorithms in a client server
`model. That, according to Dr. Zadok, and is set forth
`in the evidence of record, that's going to improve
`Gelb's usability, it's going to appeal then and be used
`by a wider number of clients, because it's going to have
`that open architecture. And it's going to allow for
`acceptance of data that's in those -- you know, that's
`from, you know, other operating systems and -- and --
`and the like, because you're taking Tivoli, which has
`that very open architecture, thus allowing it to be used
`by many clients, many computing platforms, many
`operating systems. So that is essentially the
`motivation to combine set forth in the Petition.
` Now, the Patent Owner looks at this and says,
`well, what's really the reason for selecting this
`combination? Why -- why these references in particular?
`And we submit that the Petition set that forth in detail
`as I just outlined. That Gelb and Tivoli are both IBM
`references, they both reflect IBM products, they both
`reflect policy based management, and so certainly,
`somebody with knowledge of Gelb would look to the
`additional teachings in the prior art of Tivoli, which
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`is dealing with this same policy based management
`approach.
` The other argument that seems to be made in the
`motivation to combine is that somehow, the -- the
`combination here is some kind of a ground-up redesign.
`That there is some massive changes that are being made
`here to Gelb, and that's just not so. We've set forth
`here on slide 32 an excerpt at the bottom from Tivoli
`itself. And Tivoli actually describes how it can be
`used with third-party storage management systems, and
`how you can use the Tivoli interface to integrate the
`Tivoli storage manager functions into third-party
`storage environments. Once again, Tivoli is this open
`environment, and there are tools in place and that were
`only available in the prior art for integrating systems
`like this together.
` As Dr. Zadok testified in his declaration,
`these kinds of systems where you have multiple different
`kinds of computing platforms, whether they be on Unix,
`or Windows, or what have you, these were very common by
`2001, certainly before the critical date, and they were
`certainly reflected in Tivoli. And as a result, as Dr.
`Zadok testified, it was common, and certainly by the
`1990s, to write software that would take account of
`multiple different operating systems. And there were
`tools in place that allowed that to be done
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`straightforwardly and easily. Dr. Zadok testified to
`his use of some of those tools, and his contribution to
`some of those tools in the 1990s.
` So this is not a ground-up redesign. This is
`taking the core teachings of Gelb and combining them
`with another policy based storage management system to
`put this -- to put Gelb into a client and server type
`model that's more open than -- than Gelb system.
` Let me now turn to another issue, and this one
`dealing with claim 18. Claim 18 as -- as the Board is
`aware, adds a limitation to claim 15 that deals with
`when you assign a storage pool to a file. That what
`that involves is applying the storage pool rule to the
`characteristics of the available storage pools to assign
`the storage pool to the file.
` A lot of references in that to the storage
`pool. So what's the storage pool? The storage pool is
`the place where the files are stored. It's -- it's the
`location essentially. So the idea of the patent is you
`set up policies and rules, and then, you know, with
`those rules, you're going to have some sort of a -- a
`storage pool where data can be stored, and they're
`different rules involving the use of those storage
`pools.
` And we submit that Gelb discloses and teaches
`exactly this limitation. So we can start on slide 35
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`with an example that is set forth in Gelb. Gelb
`discloses that you apply storage pool rules to
`characteristics of those pools. Of those pools. So
`what is an example of a storage pool rule in Gelb?
`Well, set forth on slide 35 here is one such rule.
`Essentially, and to more colloquial terms, if you have
`big files, then you're going to store them in what Gelb
`calls the LARGE -- all caps -- LARGE storage group. So
`big files, that's where they go.
` Now, that is applying a storage pool rule to a
`characteristic of the storage pool. What is that
`characteristic? The characteristic of the all capitals,
`LARGE storage group is that it is for large files.
`That's the characteristic of that storage group. It's
`-- it's for the large files. It's not for the small
`files.
` And in fact, if I turn to slide 37, Gelb
`describes this specifically. It says that there are
`four types of storage groups, and it goes through them.
`And it says that the, all capitals, LARGE storage group
`is for large, non-database datasets. And then, it has
`other storage groups there that are for other purposes.
`So the characteristic of the LARGE storage group is yes,
`it holds large files. So when a large file is then
`under consideration, where does this one go? Well, yes,
`it gets stored in the LARGE storage group.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
` So that is it a clear application of having --
`going back to slide 34, what the claim talks about.
`Applying a storage pool rule to the characteristics of
`the available storage pools to assign storage pool to a
`file. That's -- that's precisely what is being taught
`and disclosed in Gelb.
` All right. Let me now turn to another issue.
`This one dealing with claim 22. And this is the second
`ground. And the second ground takes a combination of
`Gelb and Tivoli and adds to it the teachings of
`Callaghan, and the submission is that that combination
`then renders claim 22 analogous.
` So claim 22 says that your computing platforms
`are selected from a particular group, and we discussed
`this a few minutes ago in a -- in a different context.
`But it lists a number of different computing platforms
`that are in that group, and it mentions the variety.
`And as the Petition explained, and I think most of these
`points are not disputed, but we'll go into where I think
`the disputes are. So Gelb certainly teaches files that
`have attributes; name, size, what have you. That's
`clearly taught by Gelb, but there's really no dispute.
` What Tivoli is teaching, at least among other
`things, are computing platforms that include DOS-derived
`and Unix systems. So DOS-derived would include DOS, of
`course, but also various Windows platform and also Unix
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`systems. And I think, importantly, and this is as
`described in Ex. 1014, what Tivoli did at the time was
`Tivoli essentially said, If you want to use NFS as for
`file sharing in -- in the Tivoli system, then, you need
`to use Unix storage server. All right. So when Tivoli,
`Tivoli has a multiplicity of clients. There are lots of
`clients out there on different computing platforms,
`whether it's Windows, or Unix, or others. And so the
`issue, then, is if you have a Unix server as the storage
`server that's going to have the Tivoli storage manager,
`then the idea there is how can we make sure that when
`we're dealing with other computing platforms besides
`Unix, that everything is going to go smoothly and
`efficiently and reliably.
` And that's where the teaching of Callaghan
`comes in. Because what Callaghan is about is it's
`essentially a book about NFS, and the chapter that is
`Ex. 1007 deals with PC NFS. What is being discussed
`there is how do we make sure that, say, a DOS file with
`a DOS naming convention is going to be correctly and
`reliably stored if I have a Unix system using NFS.
` What Callaghan is saying there is the best way
`to do this is to have a translation table. Not
`necessarily do this through complicated algorithms and
`whatnot, but use a translation table. And it shows in
`Callaghan various tables where you could have an NFS
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`name, and then, there's a corresponding DOS name, for
`example. There's also teachings in Callaghan about the
`differences between DOS and Windows and DOS and Unix so
`that a person of ordinary skill certainly can create
`these sorts of tables as a way to accomplish what the
`claim requires, which is translating the one or more
`attributes.
` So essentially, what Tivoli adds to the
`equation is the how. How do I make sure that this is a
`reliable translation of names and other attributes. And
`that's what Callaghan is disclosing and teaching. And
`why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated
`to use it is again because Tivoli is saying if you want
`to use NFS with Tivoli, you better make sure that there
`is that -- that you know, you need a Unix server, and
`therefore, Callaghan is teaching yes, for Unix, here is
`how I can convert DOS attributes and Windows,
`DOS-derived attributes into that format
` So that's the motivation to combine, and that's
`the teachings of Callaghan.
` Now, let me turn now to slide 54, and turn to
`another dispute. This relates to ground 3. And this is
`the ground that Devarakonda anticipates the claims. All
`but 22 because Devarakonda doesn't identify specific
`operating systems by name. It doesn't name the
`computing platform. It doesn't describe hardware by
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`name, it doesn't describe operating systems by name, but
`it does describe a plurality of different computing
`platforms.
` And that's essentially the -- the issue on
`which the Board in its initial determination in the ID,
`it essentially said that, At this stage of the
`proceeding, that a combination hadn't yet -- the
`evidence hadn't yet accounted sufficiently for that
`limitation about the two different computing platforms.
`So I'd like to address that and identify for the Board
`the evidence that shows that indeed, Devarakonda does
`disclose these two different computing platforms.
` So turning to slide 55. If we start off with
`the -- what is a computing platform? Under the correct
`understanding of what a computing platform is, which, if
`we turn to slide 56, repeated there is the language from
`the Microsoft Dictionary definition, it includes the
`type of computer. There's no question but that
`Devarakonda discloses a plurality of different types of
`computers. Workstations, personal computers, telephony
`devices, handheld computers. Unquestionably, a
`telephony device is different than a workstation. You
`know, a laptop, you know, and a mainframe. It describes
`a multiplicity of different computer types. And so
`under that definition of a computing platform, there's
`no question that Devarakonda discloses this.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
` There's an argument that was made in the
`sur-reply that essentially said, Well, wait a minute,
`Dr. Zadok actually blessed this, this interpretation.
`But that's not correct. Dr. Zadok actually cites to the
`Microsoft Dictionary definition which includes the idea
`that platforms include the type of computer.
` Now, that, we submit, is sufficient. The types
`of -- different types of computers are disclosed. That
`was the only issue that's being argued and the only
`element of the claims, again putting aside claim 22,
`that is argued to be missing. Is so we submit that the
`evidence satisfies that, it's disclosed.
` If operating systems is strictly limited to --
`sorry, strike that.
` If computing platforms, I meant to say, is
`strictly limited to operating systems, and only
`operating systems, which we submit is an incorrect
`construction, regardless, Devarakonda still discloses
`this.
` And let me explain why and point the Board to
`the -- to the relevant evidence.
` Let's start turning to slide 58. If we start
`with Devarakonda, and we turn to column 3 of
`Devarakonda, Devarakonda starts there with the heading,
`Policy Based Management Framework. That's the start.
`And then, beneath that, as shown on slide 58, it says,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`That described implementations.
` And I'm going to pause there on
`implementations. Described implementations concern, and
`it goes through what those implementations include. And
`those implementations include quote, Large number of
`servers running different operating systems.
` So in this policy based management framework of
`Devarakonda, you have large numbers of servers running
`different operating systems. That's how the system is
`implemented. Lots of servers that can -- that have this
`functionality of being able to run different operating
`systems. There is language, and that goes at it at
`column 9 as well. But I think column 3 is particularly
`clear on this point.
` And if we switch back now to slide 57, remember
`column 3 talked about the policy based management
`framework, and then, it says, Okay, here's how we're
`going to implement it. In column 8, of Devarakonda, it
`talks specifically about the implementation of a policy
`based management framework. And it identifies there the
`specific servers that are part of that implementation.
`And those servers are application servers, and storage
`servers.
` So what we have, then, is a disclosure of a
`framework. I've got lot of server s, those servers can
`run different operating systems, and those servers
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00831
`Patent 8,671,132 B2
`
`include the application servers. And that's sufficient
`because the application servers here, that's what we're
`talking about in terms of this, if I go back, the
`plurality of clients that comprise at least two
`different computing platforms. The application servers
`are that, and they include at least two different
`computing platforms.
` Finally, and I think this is -- this evidence
`also corroborates this point, is the fact that.
`Devarakonda discloses middleware. And it doesn't
`disclose middleware
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
