UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`LS CLOUD STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`IPR2023-00120
`Patent 10,154,092
`______________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. HASSAN ZEINO, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 1 of 36
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS .................................................. 3
`II.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................ 3
`III.
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF APPLICABLE LAW ......................................... 4
`A.
`Priority Date and Prior Art ...................................................................... 4
`B.
`Claim Interpretation ................................................................................. 4
`C.
`Anticipation ................................................................................................ 5
`D.
`Obviousness ................................................................................................ 6
`E.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 7
`THE ’092 PATENT ....................................................................................... 7
`SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART ..................................... 9
`Heil ............................................................................................................ 10
`Nakayama ................................................................................................. 11
`
`V.
`VI.
`A.
`B.
`
`C． Gulick .......................................................................................................... 13
`
`Berman ..................................................................................................... 14
`D.
`VII. OPINIONS REGARDING ASSERTED GROUNDS ............................... 15
`A. Ground 1: Petitioner Fails to demonstrate that Challenged Claims 1-3, 7-
`12, and 19-23 are Anticipated by Heil under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ........ 15
`1. Claim 1 ............................................................................................................ 15
`a. Element [1.A] .................................................................................... 16
`
`ii
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 2 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`b. Element [1.E] .................................................................................... 18
`2. Claims 2-3 and 7-12 ....................................................................................... 20
`3. Claim 19 .......................................................................................................... 20
`a. Element [19.A] .................................................................................. 20
`b. Element [19.f] ................................................................................... 21
`3. Claims 20-23 ................................................................................................... 21
`B. Ground 2: Petitioner Fails to demonstrate that Challenged Claims 10
`and 11 are Anticipated by Heil under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................... 21
`C. Ground 3: Petitioner Fails to demonstrate that Challenged Claims 1-3
`and 6-24 are Obvious over Heil and Nakayama under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) ......................................................................................................... 22
`1. Claim 1 ............................................................................................................ 22
`2. Claims 2-3 and 6-12 ....................................................................................... 22
`3. Claim 13 ......................................................................................................... 22
`4. Claims 14-18 ................................................................................................... 23
`5. Claim 19 .......................................................................................................... 23
`6. Claims 20-23 ................................................................................................... 25
`7. Claim 24 .......................................................................................................... 25
`D. Ground 4: Petitioner Fails to demonstrate that Challenged Claim 4 is
`Obvious over Heil, Nakayama, and Gulick under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)26
`E. Ground 5: Petitioner Fails to demonstrate that Challenged Claim 5 is
`Obvious over Heil, Nakayama, and Berman under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
` ................................................................................................................... 27
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 3 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Hassan Zeino, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an expert on behalf of Patent Owner LS Cloud
`
`Storage Technologies, LLC (“Patent Owner” or “LS Cloud”) in this inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) proceeding of U.S. Patent No. 10,154,092 (“the ’092 Patent”). I
`
`understand this proceeding was initiated by Petitioner Google, LLC (“Petitioner” or
`
`“Google”).
`
`2.
`
`I have set forth my professional qualifications and relevant experience
`
`in Section II of this Declaration, and a copy of my curriculum vitae is included as
`
`Attachment A.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my expert opinions regarding the validity
`
`of claims 1-24 of the ’092 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has asserted invalidity based on the
`
`following references:
`
`Reference
`
`Heil (U.S. Pat. No. 6,173,374)
`
`Nakayama (U.S. Pat. No. 5,920,893)
`
`Gulick (U.S. Pat. No. 5,692,211)
`
`Berman (U.S. Pat. No. 6,118,776)
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Exhibit
`
` 1006
`
` 1007
`
` 1008
`
` 1009
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 4 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`In particular, I understand that Petitioner has asserted the following five
`
`“Grounds” of invalidity based on these references:
`
`Ground Challenged Patent
`Claims
`Claims 1-3, 7-12,
`and 19-23
`Claims 10-11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`Anticipation/
`Obviousness
`Anticipation Heil
`
`Anticipation Heil
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Claims 1-3 and 6-24 Obviousness Heil and Nakayama
`
`Claim 4
`
`Claim 5
`
`Obviousness Heil, Nakayama, and Gulick
`
`Obviousness Heil, Nakayama, and Berman
`
`As set forth in this Declaration, I do not agree that the identified
`
`references anticipate or render obvious any of the claims of the ’092 Patent.
`
`7.
`
`In forming the opinions I express in this Declaration, I have considered
`
`the ’092 Patent (EXH1001) and its corresponding file history (EXH1002), Google’s
`
`Petition for IPR (Paper 2), the file history of U.S. Patent No. 6,549,988 (EXH1003),
`
`the declaration of Dr. Paul Franzon (EXH1004), as well as the references
`
`(EXH1006-EXH1009) and other exhibits on which Petitioner and Dr. Franzon rely.
`
`8.
`
`Additionally, I have relied on my own knowledge, training, and more
`
`than 25 years of experience in the computer science field.
`
`9.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in connection with this IPR at my
`
`standard consulting rate; my compensation is not affected by the outcome of this
`
`
`
`2
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 5 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`matter.
`
`II. BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS
`
`10.
`
`I am the founder and CTO of Telecomunique, a consulting company
`
`based in Gatineau, Quebec.
`
`11.
`
`I earned a Ph.D. in Computer Science Blaise PASCAL University in
`
`France in 1996.
`
`12.
`
`I have served as an expert witness in other matters, including PTAB
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01161 and Case No. IPR2017-01509.
`
`13. Additional details regarding my background and qualifications are set
`
`forth in my curriculum vitae in Attachment A.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`14. Based on my analysis, I have concluded:
`
`a.
`
`Heil does not anticipate claims 1-3, 7-12, and 19-23 of the ’092
`
`Patent (as Petitioner asserts in Ground 1);
`
`b.
`
`Heil does not anticipate claims 10 and 11 of the ’092 Patent (as
`
`Petitioner asserts in Ground 2);
`
`c.
`
`Heil and Nakayama do not render claims 1-3 and 6-24 of the ’092
`
`Patent obvious (as Petitioner asserts in Ground 3);
`
`d.
`
`Heil, Nakayama, and Gulick do not render claim 4 of the ’092
`
`Patent obvious (as Petitioner asserts in Ground 4); and
`
`
`
`3
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 6 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`e.
`
`Heil, Nakayama, and Berman do not render claim 5 of the ’092
`
`Patent obvious (as Petitioner asserts in Ground 5).
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF APPLICABLE LAW
`
`15.
`
`I am neither a lawyer nor a legal expert; I am not offering any opinions
`
`regarding applicable legal standards. I set forth below my understanding of the law,
`
`as it has been explained to me, and I have applied this understanding in rendering
`
`my opinions in this Declaration.
`
`A.
`
`Priority Date and Prior Art
`
`16.
`
`In the context of an IPR, the prior art to the challenged patent includes
`
`patents and printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of
`
`the patent in question.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that the application that issued as the ’092 Patent is a
`
`continuation of application No. 13/527,126, filed on Jun. 19, 2012, which is a
`
`continuation of application No. 10/382,016, filed on Mar. 5, 2003, which is a
`
`divisional of application No. 09/236,409, filed on Jan. 22, 1999. I have been asked
`
`to consider the earliest priority date (i.e., Jan 22, 1999) as the priority date of the
`
`’092 Patent.
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`
`18.
`
`I understand that in construing or interpreting a patent claim, the words
`
`of the claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the
`
`
`
`4
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 7 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`meaning that the words would have had to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in question at the time of the invention. The person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`deemed to read the claim term in the context of not only the particular claim in which
`
`the disputed term appears, but also in the context of the entire patent, including the
`
`other claims and the specification, as well as the prosecution history of the patent.
`
`19. According to 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b), in an inter partes review, claim
`
`terms are construed using the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 282(b), including construing the claim 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.
`
`20. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a
`
`variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification,
`
`drawings, and file history. However, the best source for determining the meaning of
`
`a claim term is the specification. The words of the claim must be given their plain
`
`meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification.
`
`C. Anticipation
`
`21. A claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference discloses each and
`
`every limitation as set forth in the claim. I understand that in some cases an element
`
`or limitation, while not explicitly or expressly disclosed in a prior art reference, may
`
`still be disclosed by the prior art reference if that element or limitation is inherent in
`
`
`
`5
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 8 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`the reference. I understand that an element or limitation is inherent, however, only
`
`if the nature of the reference is such that the element or limitation is necessarily
`
`present in the reference.
`
`D. Obviousness
`
`22. To invalidate a patent claim as obvious in the context of an IPR
`
`proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are
`
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains at the time the claimed
`
`invention was made. Factors relevant to the determination of obviousness include
`
`(1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention, (3) differences between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art, and (4) “secondary considerations” or objective evidence of obviousness
`
`or non-obviousness. Another factor is whether prior art teaches away from the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`23.
`
` Reason to Combine. Obviousness can be established by showing that
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined or modified the teachings
`
`of the prior art to produce the claimed invention and would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in achieving the claimed subject matter. There is no
`
`requirement that the prior art provide an express teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`
`
`6
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 9 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`to combine elements of the prior art, but a determination of obviousness requires
`
`more than showing that each element of a patent claim was independently known in
`
`the prior art. Rather, the petitioner in an IPR must identify some apparent reason
`
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements or
`
`concepts from the prior art in the same way as in the claimed invention when
`
`considered as a whole. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be
`
`found in the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, from the nature of the
`
`problem to be solved, market demand, or common sense.
`
`E.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`24. A person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of invention. Factors that may
`
`be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include the type of
`
`problems encountered in the art, the prior solutions to the problems, the rapidity with
`
`which innovations were made, the sophistication of the technology, and the
`
`educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`25.
`
`I do not disagree with Dr. Franzon’s characterization of a person of skill
`
`in the art. EXH1004, para. 36.
`
`V. THE ’092 PATENT
`
`26. The ’092 Patent discloses a network of PCs including an I/O channel
`
`adapter and network adapter configured for management of a distributed cache
`
`
`
`7
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 10 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`memory stored in the plurality of PCs interconnected by the network. The use of
`
`standard PCs reduces the cost of the data storage system. The use of the network of
`
`PCs permits building large, high-performance, data storage systems. EXH1001,
`
`Abstract.
`
`Figure 1 – ’092 Patent
`
`
`
`27. FIG. 1 of the ’092 Patent, reproduced above, illustrates a network of
`
`data storage systems (131, 132, 133). The PC data storage system 131 services a
`
`plurality of channel attached host processors 111, 112 using dedicated I/O channels
`
`
`
`8
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 11 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`121, 122, and a plurality of network attached host processors 106, 107 using network
`
`link 151, and a plurality of network attached data storage systems 132, 133 using
`
`network links 152, 153. PC storage system 132 services channel attached hosts 157,
`
`158. See EXH1001, col. 5, lines 9-16.
`
`28. Hosts 157 and 158 access data storage system 131 indirectly via network
`
`attached data storage system 132, thereby offloading communications protocol
`
`overhead from remote hosts 157, 158. Hosts 106 and 107, without a data storage
`
`system, directly access storage system 131 via network link 151 thereby incurring
`
`communications protocol overhead on hosts 106, 107 and therefore decreasing
`
`performance of applications running on those hosts. See EXH1001, col. 5, 17-24.
`
`29. Host 111 accesses remote disk 181 via local data storage system 131,
`
`network link 153, and remote data storage system 133 without incurring protocol
`
`overhead on host 111. Host 157 accesses disk 161 via data storage system 133,
`
`network link 152, and data storage system 131 without incurring protocol overhead
`
`on host 157. Host 106 directly 30 accesses local disk 161 via network link 151
`
`thereby incurring protocol overhead. See EXH1001, col. 5, 25-34.
`
`VI. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART
`
`30. Petitioner relies on the Heil, Nakayama, Gulick, and Berman references
`
`to support Petitioner’s invalidity arguments. Before addressing my opinions in
`
`relation to these arguments, I provide some background information on these cited
`
`
`
`9
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 12 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`references, which informs and provides context for my opinions.
`
`A. Heil
`
`31. Heil, which Petitioner relies on as its Primary reference, describes a system
`
`that retrieves data across independent computer nodes of a server cluster by
`
`providing for “I/0 shipping of block” level requests to peer intelligent host-bus
`
`adapters (hereinafter referred to as HBA). EXH1006, Abstract.
`
`32.
`
`FIG. 1 of Heil is reproduced below:
`
`Heil - Figure 1
`
`
`
`33. According to Heil, Host bus adapter (HBA) 117 has “embedded
`
`intelligence” that allows it to function as an intelligent PCI-to-PCI bridge and as a
`
`
`
`10
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 13 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`disk drive controller for local disks 118. The front-end interface 102 is a PCI-to-PCI
`
`Bus bridge that connects, via PCI bus 117.6, various peripheral 1/0 devices, such as
`
`the local drives 118 and Fibre Channel Chip 120, to a centralized system PCI bus
`
`116.5. Front-end interface 102 is connected to embedded Host-to-PCI Bus bridge
`
`101 via PCI bus 117.6. The Host-to-PCI Bus bridge 101 adapts the PCI bus 117.6
`
`signals and internal bus 117.3 signals to allow communications with the embedded
`
`HBA intelligence. See EXH1006, Col. 6-7.
`
`B. Nakayama
`
`34. Nakayama (EXH1007) describes data storage control that enables data
`
`on various storage media to be shared among host computers having different host
`
`computer input/output interfaces. A control processor checks a host computer
`
`interface management table when a write operation is requested by a host computer.
`
`See EXH1007, Abstract. FIG. 3 of Nakayama is shown below.
`
`35.
`
`FIG. 3 is a block diagram showing the configuration of a disk
`
`subsystem having a cache memory. A disk control 302 is connected to a host
`
`computer 300 via a channel control 301 on the host side and is also connected to a
`
`host computer 303 via a small computer system interface (SCSI) bus control 304.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 14 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 - Nakayama
`
`
`
`12
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 15 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`C． Gulick
`
`36. Gulick relates to a computer system and method for real-time
`
`applications which provides “increased performance over [earlier] computer
`
`architectures.” See EXH1008, Abstract.
`
`37.
`
`Figure 1 of Gulick is reproduced below:
`
`Gulick - Figure 1
`
`
`
`38.
`
`Figure 1 shows a block diagram of a computer system. The computer
`
`system includes a central processing unit (CPU) cache 102 which is coupled through
`
`
`
`13
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 16 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`a CPU local bus 104 to a host/PCI/cache bridge or chipset 106. See EXH1008, col.
`
`4, lines 61-65. The host/PCI/cache bridge 106 and the main memory 110 are coupled
`
`via the memory bus 108 to the multimedia engine 112. See EXH1008, col. 5, lines
`
`9-11.
`
`D. Berman
`
`39.
`
`Berman (EXH1009)
`
`is directed
`
`to a personalized marketing
`
`architecture that uses real-time data and explicit customer input to augment
`
`marketing segmentation, analysis and video advertisement delivery. Customer
`
`behavior, preferences, and intentions are monitored and identified to present real-
`
`time video messages. See Ex.1007, Abstract.
`
`Figure 14 - Berman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 17 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`40.
`
`FIG. 14 of Berman is reproduced above. FIG. 14 shows a block diagram
`
`of the Berman “fabric.” The fabric is composed of a fabric control module 454, a
`
`fabric router 452, multiple port control modules 451, 474, 475, a switch core module
`
`453, and optionally one or more bridge modules 455. The Fabric Control module
`
`454 controls and configures the rest of the fabric but is not usually involved in the
`
`normal routing of frames. See EXH 1009, col. 11, lines 30-36.
`
`VII. OPINIONS REGARDING ASSERTED GROUNDS
`
`41.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has raised five grounds of invalidity, and I
`
`provide my opinions in relation to grounds 1 - 5 in the sections below. Because my
`
`background discussions above regarding the ’092 Patent, the scope and content of
`
`the prior art, and claim interpretation inform my opinions, I consider these sections
`
`above to be part of my opinions and incorporate them by reference.
`
`A. Ground 1: Petitioner Fails to demonstrate that Challenged Claims 1-3, 7-
`
`12, and 19-23 are Anticipated by Heil under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`
`1. Claim 1
`
`42.
`
`Independent claim 1 has been divided into elements for consideration
`
`by the Petitioner as follows:
`
`[1.pre] An apparatus comprising:
`
`[1.a] a first interface configured to receive input/output (I/O) traffic from a
`
`first host device via a dedicated I/O channel, the I/O traffic comprising a read
`
`
`
`15
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 18 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`command;
`
`[1.b] a second interface configured to receive first data via a network;
`
`[1.c] a cache memory configured to store second data;
`
`[1.d] a storage device configured to store third data; and
`
`[1.e] a processor coupled to the cache memory, the processor coupled to the
`
`storage device via a communication path that is distinct from the dedicated I/O
`
`channel, the processor configured to access the cache memory during processing of
`
`the I/O traffic,
`
`[1.f] the processor further configured to perform an access operation at the
`
`storage device based on the I/O traffic.
`
`a.
`
`Element [1.A]
`
`43. Heil does not disclose or suggest element [1.a].
`
`44. Claim 1 of the ʼ092 Patent recites “a first interface configured to receive
`
`input/output (I/O) traffic from a first host device via a dedicated I/O channel, the
`
`I/O traffic comprising a read command[.]” (emphasis added).
`
`45. Petitioner argues that Heil describes a first interface that receives I/O
`
`traffic from a host device in the form of an interface for a PCI bus bridge 115, PCI
`
`bus 116.5, or Front End I/F 102 for receiving input from a host system (CPU 100).
`
`See excerpt from FIG. 1 of Heil below.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 19 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`Heil – Figure 1 (excerpt)
`
`46. Petitioner maps Node 1's Host system to Patent Owner’s claimed “first host”
`
`
`
`and elements 115, 116. 5 or 102 to “a first interface” to HBA 117. Petitioner thus
`
`maps path 115 to 116.5 to 102 as the dedicated I/O channel of element [1.a]. This
`
`mapping cannot be made. Indeed, Heil specifically notes that the indicated path (i.e.,
`
`the path including elements 115, 116.5 and 102) is not dedicated, to-wit: “As shown
`
`in FIG. 1, one HBA services the I/O requests from CPU 1 and CPU2 100. One skilled
`
`
`
`17
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 20 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`in the art, however, will recognize the load sharing benefits of allowing a plurality
`
`of HBAs to service the local and remote I/O requests of CPU 1 and CPU 2 100.”
`
`Col. 7, lines 36-40. (Emphasis added). Heil thus teaches that the identified path is a
`
`shared path and that load balancing and sharing is advantageous over a dedicated
`
`path, and hence teaches away from Patent Owner’s claimed invention. In particular,
`
`Heil teaches use of a shared path and teaches away from a dedicated I/O channel, as
`
`in each of the independent claims of the ‘092 patent. (See claim 1 element 1.A as
`
`an example). Heil does not just offer an alternative or “preferred” solution, but
`expressly cautions against the very solution proposed (by the claimed invention).
`
`47.
`
`It can be seen that in this indicated path: element 115 is a PCI bridge
`
`that shares the traffic of and between multiple CPUs 100. This shared
`communication path cannot in any sense be reasonably characterized as “dedicated.”
`b.
`Element [1.E]
`
`48. Heil does not disclose or suggest element [1.e].
`
`49. Claim 1 of the ’092 Patent recites, “a processor coupled to the cache
`
`memory, the processor coupled to the storage device via a communication path that
`
`is distinct from the dedicated I/O channel, the processor configured to access the
`
`cache memory during processing of the I/O traffic.”
`
`50. Petitioner’s expert recites, at paragraph 89: “Heil’s Figure 1 shows that
`
`the communication path from the processor to the storage device—i.e., from the
`
`
`
`18
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 21 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`CPU 117.1 to the local drives 118 via a SCSI interface, annotated below in red—is
`
`distinct from the dedicated I/O channel[.]”
`
`51. However, in reference to FIG. 1, Heil indicates, “The front-end
`
`interface 102 is a PCI-to-PCI Bus bridge that connects, via PCI bus 117.6, various
`
`peripheral I/O devices, such as the local drives 118 and Fibre Channel Chip 120, to
`
`a centralized system PCI bus 116.5.” See EXH1006, Col. 7, lines 1-4.
`
`52.
`
`It is clear that front-end interface 102 of Heil cannot be described as
`
`dedicated. Instead, front-end interface 102 connects and is shared by various
`
`peripheral I/O devices, such as the local drives 118 and Fibre Channel Chip 120, to
`
`PCI bus 116.5. Indeed, front-end interface 102 connects Fibre Channel Chip 120, to
`
`PCI bus 116.5, and this connection makes front-end interface 102 part of the
`
`communication path from the processor to storage device. Thus, the communication
`
`path from the processor to the storage device is not distinct in Heil as stated by the
`
`Petitioner’s expert paragraph 89.
`
`53. Heil teaches away from a dedicated IO channel, because it is referring
`
`to a load sharing to allow multiple HBA to serve one host, “As shown in FIG. 1, one
`
`HBA services the I/O requests from CPU 1 and CPU2100. One skilled in the art,
`
`however, will recognize the load Sharing benefits of allowing a plurality of HBAS
`
`to service the local and remote I/O requests of CPU 1 and CPU 2 100. As a node
`
`expands its processing power by adding CPUs, additional HBAS may be required to
`
`
`
`19
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 22 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`service the additional local and remote I/O requests.” Compare EXH1006 Col. 7,
`
`linesF 36-43.
`
`54. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art relying on Heil would have gone
`
`in a different direction than the claimed invention and would not have reasonably
`
`expected success to proceed on the path resulting in the claimed invention.
`
`55.
`
`I note further that none of the other references provided by Petitioner
`
`teaches a dedicated I/O channel. Each of the other cited references fails to remedy
`
`the shortcomings of Heil in this regard.
`
`2. Claims 2-3 and 7-12
`
`56. Heil does not anticipate claims 2-3 and 7-12. Claims 2-3 and 7-12
`
`depend from claim 1. It is my understanding that these claims are valid because each
`
`depends from valid claim 1 and recites additional subject matter.
`
`3. Claim 19
`
`a.
`
`Element [19.A]
`
`57.
`
`Independent claim 19 of the ’092 Patent recites “a first interface
`
`configured to receive input/output (I/O) traffic from a host computer via a dedicated
`
`I/O channel, the I/O traffic comprising one or more read commands, one or more
`
`write commands, or a combination thereof[.]” (emphasis added). Petitioner alleges
`
`that element Heil teaches this element for the same reason that Petitioner alleges that
`
`Heil teaches element [1.a] of claim 1. See Paper 2, page 41. As I have explained
`
`
`
`20
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 23 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`however, Heil does not, in my opinion, teach element [1.a]. Therefore, Heil does not
`
`teach element [19.a].
`
`b.
`
`Element [19.f]
`
`58.
`
`Independent claim 19 of the ’092 patent also recites “the processor
`
`further configured to perform one or more access operations at the storage device
`
`based on the I/O traffic, wherein the communication path is distinct from the
`
`dedicated I/O channel[.]” Petitioner alleges that element Heil teaches this element
`
`for the same reason that Petitioner alleges that Heil teaches element [1.e] of claim 1.
`
`See Paper 2, page 42. As I have explained however, Heil does not, in my opinion,
`
`teach element [1.e]. Thus, Heil does not teach element [19.f].
`
`3. Claims 20-23
`
`59. Heil does not anticipate claims 20-23. Claims 20-23 depend from claim
`
`19. Claims 20-23 are valid because each depends from valid claim 19 and recites
`
`additional subject matter.
`
`B. Ground 2: Petitioner Fails to demonstrate that Challenged Claims 10 and
`
`11 are Anticipated by Heil under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`60. Heil does not anticipate claims 10-11. Claims 10-11 depend from claim
`
`1. Claims 10-11 are valid because each depends from valid claim 1 and recites
`
`additional subject matter.
`
`
`
`21
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 24 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`C. Ground 3: Petitioner Fails to demonstrate that Challenged Claims 1-3 and
`
`6-24 are Obvious over Heil and Nakayama under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`1. Claim 1
`
`61. Heil does not teach or suggest elements [1.a] or [1.e], as I have
`
`explained above. Nakayama does not cure the deficiencies of Heil with regard to
`
`these elements. Specifically, Petitioner does not argue that Nakayama teaches or
`
`suggests a dedicated I/O channel. Additionally, as I have explained, Heil
`
`affirmatively teaches away from a dedicated I/O channel as claimed by Patent
`
`Owner. I am given to understand that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. Claim 1 is therefore not obvious in
`
`view of Heil and Nakayama.
`
`2. Claims 2-3 and 6-12
`
`62. Heil and Nakayama do not render claims 2-3 and 6-12 obvious. Claims
`
`2-3 and 6-12 depend from claim 1. Claims 2-3 and 6-12 are valid because each
`
`depends from valid claim 1 and recites additional subject matter.
`
`3. Claim 13
`
`63. Claim 13 of the ’092 Patent recites, “receiving input/output (I/O) traffic
`
`from a host device via a dedicated I/O channel at a first interface, the I/O traffic
`
`comprising a write command[.]” (element [13.a]) Petitioner argues that Petitioner
`
`discloses “receiving input/output (I/O) traffic from a host device via a dedicated I/O
`
`
`
`22
`
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies Exhibit 2001
`Google v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00120, 25 of 36
`
`

`

`
`
`channel at a first interface” citing to Petitioner’s arguments regarding element [1.a].
`
`64. Claim 13 of the ’092 Patent further recites, “performing one or more
`
`access operations at the storage device based on the I/O traffic, the one or m