UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LS CLOUD STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,154,092
`IPR2023-00120
`____________
`
`EX. 1004
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. PAUL FRANZON, PH.D.
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 1 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................................... 2
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ................................................................... 5
`
`IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................... 7
`
`A. Claim Construction ........................................................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) .......................................................... 8
`
`C. Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) .......................................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... 12
`
`VI. THE STATE OF THE ART AT THE TIME OF INVENTION............. 13
`
`VII. THE ’092 PATENT ..................................................................................... 20
`
`A. Claim Construction ........................................................................... 22
`
`VIII. UNPATENTABILITY ANALYSIS ........................................................... 25
`
`A. Overview of the Prior Art ................................................................. 25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Heil ............................................................................................ 25
`
`Nakayama ................................................................................ 26
`
`Gulick ....................................................................................... 27
`
`Berman ..................................................................................... 28
`
`B. Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation of Claims 1-3, 7-12, and 19-23
`by Heil ................................................................................................. 28
`
`
`
`i
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 2 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 29
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`1.pre: “An apparatus comprising” ............................. 29
`
`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 command” ..................................... 29
`
`1.b: “a second interface configured to receive
`first data via a network” .............................................. 32
`
`1.c: “a cache memory configured to store second
`data” ............................................................................... 34
`
`1.d: “a storage device configured to store third
`data” ............................................................................... 35
`
`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”............................................................... 36
`
`g)
`
`1.f: “the processor further configured to perform
`an access operation at the storage device based
`on the I/O traffic” ......................................................... 40
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 41
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 42
`
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 44
`
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 46
`
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 48
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`ii
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 3 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`9.a: “the storage device and the dedicated I/O
`channel are independently accessible” ....................... 48
`
`9.b: “wherein the processor is configured to read
`at least a portion of the second data from the
`cache memory based on the read command” ............ 50
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 50
`
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 52
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`11.a: “configuration manager circuitry
`configured to route an I/O request included in
`the I/O traffic to the cache memory, to route the
`I/O request to the storage device, or to deny the
`I/O request” ................................................................... 52
`
`11.b: “front-end circuitry configured to process
`the I/O request”............................................................. 54
`
`11.c: “back-end circuitry configured to perform
`a read operation or a write operation at the
`storage device based on the I/O request” ................... 55
`
`9.
`
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 56
`
`10. Claim 19 ................................................................................... 57
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`19.pre: “An apparatus comprising” ........................... 57
`
`19.a: “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” .......................................................................... 57
`
`c)
`
`19.b: “a second interface configured to receive
`data via a network” ...................................................... 57
`
`iii
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 4 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`d)
`
`19.c: “a cache memory” ............................................... 58
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`19.d: “a storage device” ................................................ 58
`
`19.e and 19.f: “a processor coupled via a
`communication path to the storage device, the
`processor configured to access the cache memory
`during processing of the I/O traffic, 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” ...................................................................... 58
`
`11. Claim 20 ................................................................................... 58
`
`12. Claim 21 ................................................................................... 59
`
`13. Claim 22 ................................................................................... 59
`
`14. Claim 23 ................................................................................... 59
`
`C. Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1-3 and 6-24 Over Heil and
`Nakayama ........................................................................................... 59
`
`1. Motivation to Combine ........................................................... 60
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 62
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`1.pre: “An apparatus comprising” ............................. 63
`
`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 command” ..................................... 63
`
`1.f: “the processor further configured to perform
`an access operation at the storage device based
`on the I/O traffic” ......................................................... 66
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 5 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 67
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 68
`
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 68
`
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 70
`
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 70
`
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 70
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 72
`
`10. Claim 11 ................................................................................... 73
`
`11. Claim 12 ................................................................................... 76
`
`12. Claim 13 ................................................................................... 77
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`13.pre: “A method comprising:” ................................. 77
`
`13.a: “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” ..................................................................... 78
`
`13.f: “performing one or more access operations
`at the storage device based on the I/O traffic, the
`one or more access operations utilizing a
`communication path between a processor and
`the storage device, the communication path
`distinct from the dedicated I/O channel.” .................. 81
`
`13. Claim 14 ................................................................................... 82
`
`14. Claim 15 ................................................................................... 83
`
`15. Claim 16 ................................................................................... 85
`
`16. Claim 17 ................................................................................... 87
`
`v
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 6 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`17.a: “The method of claim 13, receiving a read
`request via the network” .............................................. 87
`
`17.b: “transmitting at least a portion of the
`second data from the cache memory via the
`network responsive to the read request being
`associated with a cache hit” ......................................... 89
`
`17. Claim 18 ................................................................................... 90
`
`18. Claim 19 ................................................................................... 93
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`19.pre: “An apparatus comprising:” .......................... 94
`
`19.a: “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” .... 95
`
`19. Claim 20 ................................................................................... 96
`
`20. Claim 21 ................................................................................... 97
`
`21. Claim 22 ................................................................................... 97
`
`22. Claim 23 ................................................................................... 99
`
`23. Claim 24 ................................................................................... 99
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`24.pre: “An apparatus comprising” ........................... 99
`
`24.a: “means for receiving input/output (I/O)
`traffic from a first host device via a dedicated I/O
`channel, the I/O traffic comprising a write
`command” ..................................................................... 100
`
`c)
`
`24.b: “means for receiving data via a network” ........ 104
`
`d)
`
`24.c: “means for short-term data storage” ................ 106
`
`vi
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 7 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`24.d: “means for long-term data storage” .................. 108
`
`24.e: “means for performing one or more access
`operations at the means for short-term data
`storage during processing of the I/O traffic and
`for performing one or more access operations at
`the means for long-term data storage based on
`the I/O traffic, the means for performing distinct
`from the dedicated I/O channel” ................................. 109
`
`D. Ground 4: Obviousness of Claim 4 Over Heil, Nakayama,
`and Gulick .......................................................................................... 113
`
`1. Motivation to Combine ........................................................... 113
`
`2.
`
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 114
`
`E. Ground 5: Obviousness of Claim 5 Over Heil, Nakayama,
`and Berman ........................................................................................ 116
`
`1. Motivation to Combine ........................................................... 117
`
`2.
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 118
`
`F.
`
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ............................. 120
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 121
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 8 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been asked to submit this declaration on behalf of Google, LLC
`
`(“Petitioner”) in connection with a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,154,092 (“the ’092 Patent,” Ex. 1001). Specifically, I have been retained as
`
`an independent expert consultant by Petitioner to provide my opinions on the
`
`technology claimed in, and the patentability or unpatentability of, claims 1-24 of
`
`the ’092 Patent (“the challenged claims”). Although I am being compensated at my
`
`usual rate of $500 per hour for the time I spend on this matter, no part of my
`
`compensation depends on the outcome of this proceeding, I have no financial
`
`interest in any of the parties, and I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`2. Unless otherwise noted, the statements made herein are based on my
`
`personal knowledge, and if called to testify about this declaration, I could and
`
`would do so competently and truthfully.
`
`3.
`
`I am not a legal expert and offer no opinions on the law. However, I
`
`have been informed by counsel of the various legal standards that apply, and I
`
`have applied those standards in arriving at my conclusions.
`
`4. The opinions I set forth herein are my own and are based on my
`
`education, experience, training and skill I have accumulated.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 9 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`I understand that my curriculum vitae (“CV”) is attached to this Report
`
`as Appendix A. It provides an accurate description of my background and
`
`experience qualifying me to provide my opinions in this matter.
`
`6.
`
`I completed my Ph.D. in Electrical and Electronic Engineering in 1989
`
`from the University of Adelaide in Australia. I obtained two additional degrees
`
`from the University of Adelaide: a Bachelor of Engineering in Electrical and
`
`Electronic Engineering in 1984 and a Bachelor of Science in Physics and
`
`Mathematics in 1983.
`
`7.
`
`I am currently Distinguished Professor and Director of Graduate
`
`Programs in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at North
`
`Carolina State University (“NCSU”) in Raleigh, North Carolina. I have been
`
`affiliated with NCSU in various roles since 1989.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`I am a Fellow of the IEEE.
`
`I have over 30 years’ experience designing digital hardware including
`
`computers, computer interfaces and peripherals. I detail some of those experiences
`
`relevant to this report below.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 10 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`10.
`
`In 1981/82 I was an intern at Australia Telecom where I
`
`reprogrammed a database system for logging system alarms in the state’s
`
`communications backbone. The goal was to speed up the system. The system was
`
`implemented on a minicomputer and how to manage disk input/output was a major
`
`consideration.
`
`11.
`
`In the late 1980’s some colleagues and I started a company called
`
`Communica Pty. Ltd. The company’s initial goal was to build a microwave link
`
`between two Ethernet based local area networks. I was involved in planning and
`
`design.
`
`12.
`
`In the 1990’s, I taught ECE 521 Computer Design and Technology and
`
`ECE 218 Computer Organization and Microprocessors. ECE 521 dealt with the
`
`design tradeoffs in pipelined and multiple-issue (i.e. superscalar) microprocessors.
`
`It included a section on input/output systems and standards, including disk drives.
`
`ECE 218 focused primarily on how to program a M68000 microprocessor, and
`
`included a section on Input/Output that emphasized interrupt and exception
`
`handling, as well as polling. Students had to get the Input/Output structures
`
`working as interfaced to a keyboard and display.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 11 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`13. Around the same time I was doing research on computer architecture.
`
`This included a project designing a superscalar microprocessor disaggregated onto
`
`a multichip module.
`
`14.
`
`I cofounded Lightspin Technologies in 2001 and filled the role of Vice
`
`President of Engineering for two years. The goal of the company was to
`
`commercialize a new high-speed modulated LED light source. The target
`
`application was Metropolitan Area Networks so we spent some time understanding
`
`their architecture. The company ran out of funds as the .com era of rapid growth
`
`came to a close.
`
`15.
`
`In the early 2000’s I was the NCSU Principal Investigator for an
`
`optical networking project. My team contributed to the logic design of the router.
`
`We filed two patents on the forwarding engine algorithms. These patents were
`
`applicable to a range of networks, not just optical ones.
`
`16.
`
`In the mid-2000’s I was the NCSU PI on a network security project.
`
`The idea was to develop ASICs to detect intruder attacks based on the behavior of
`
`the network traffic. We did partial implementations using FPGAs. We also
`
`developed hardware to build filters to detect and block intruder attacks. We
`
`developed an accelerator for a Snort packet filter.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 12 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`17.
`
`In the 2010’s I was the PI of a project building a 3D heterogeneous
`
`processor stack. The project covered CPU, cache and IO design. The CPU stack
`
`was fabricated at Global Foundries and Ziptronix. We also architected similar
`
`concepts in an x86 CPU stack.
`
`18.
`
`In the late 2010’s I led a series of projects intended to develop a low
`
`power SIMD CPU aimed at executing neuromorphic applications. Several
`
`versions of the CPU were designed and/or built including conventional versions
`
`and chipletized versions.
`
`19. Since 2020 I have been leading a project implementing a FPGA
`
`system to intercept RansomWare attacks in real time. The system sits on the
`
`network of a computer or data system and monitors incoming network traffic. It
`
`can identify an attack in less than 1 ms.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`20.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I have
`
`considered, among other things, the following documents. I understand the
`
`documents have been given the following exhibit numbers in this proceeding:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 13 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit Number
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,154,092
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,154,092 (Application No.
`
`14/997,327)
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,549,988 (Application No. 09/236,409)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,173,374 (“Heil”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,920,893
`
`(“Nakayama”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,692,211 (“Gulick”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,118,776 (“Berman”)
`
`D. Patterson, G. Gibson, R. Katz,
`
`entitled “A Case for Redundant Arrays
`
`of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)”.
`
`SIGMOD88: International Conference
`
`On Management of Data Chicago
`
`Illinois USA June 1 - 3, 1988
`
`1015
`
`R. H. Katz, "Network-attached storage
`
`systems," Proceedings Scalable High
`
`Performance Computing Conference
`
`SHPCC-92., Williamsburg, VA, USA,
`
`1992, pp. 68-75.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 14 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1016
`
`Gang Ma and A. L. Narasimha Reddy,
`
`"An evaluation of storage systems based
`
`on network-attached
`
`disks," Proceedings. 1998 International
`
`Conference on Parallel Processing (Cat.
`
`No.98EX205), Minneapolis, MN, USA,
`
`1998, pp. 278-285.
`
`doi: 10.1109/ICPP.1998.708497
`
`IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`21.
`
`I understand that claims of a patent are generally interpreted according
`
`to their ordinary and customary meaning taking into consideration the so-called
`
`“intrinsic evidence” of the patent consisting of (1) the claim language; (2) the
`
`specification; and (3) the prosecution history.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that claim terms may sometimes be defined by the
`
`specification. For example, a claim term may be explicitly defined in the patent
`
`specification, or it may be implicitly defined through consistent usage in the
`
`specification. I also understand that the scope of claim terms may be limited by
`
`
`
`7
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 15 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`statements in the specification or prosecution history where the applicant clearly
`
`disavows or disclaims subject matter.
`
`B. Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102)
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that to obtain a patent the claimed invention
`
`must have, as of the date of the invention, been novel over the prior art. I
`
`understand that an invention is not novel if it is anticipated by the prior art. I
`
`understand that an invention is anticipated if a single prior art reference discloses
`
`all the limitations or elements 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 the reference. I understand that an element or limitation is
`
`inherent if the nature of the reference is such that the element or limitation is
`
`necessarily present, or put another way, that it would have to follow from the
`
`disclosed system or method that the element or limitation must be present.
`
`C. Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103)
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed that a patentable invention must, as of the date of
`
`the invention, have been non-obvious in view of the prior art in the field. I
`
`understand that an invention is obvious if the differences between the subject
`
`
`
`8
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 16 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
`
`whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art (POSITA).
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that the following factors are evaluated to
`
`determine whether a Petitioner has met its burden of proof that a claimed invention
`
`is obvious:
`
`a. The scope and content of the prior art relied upon;
`
`b. The difference or differences, if any, between each claim of the
`
`patent and the prior art; and
`
`c. The level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention of
`
`the patent was made.
`
`26. These factual inquiries determine whether the claimed subject matter
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the alleged
`
`invention was made.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that various objective indicia can be evidence of non-
`
`obviousness, including, for example: (1) commercial success of the invention; (2)
`
`a long-felt need for the invention; (3) copying by others of the subject matter of the
`
`claim invention; (4) failure by others to find the solution provided by the
`
`
`
`9
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 17 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`invention; (5) skepticism or expressions of surprise from experts and those skilled
`
`in the art; (6) unexpected results of the claimed invention; (7) acceptance of others
`
`and industry praise; and (8) licensing of the patents.
`
`28.
`
`I also understand that “obviousness” is a legal conclusion based on the
`
`underlying factual issues of the scope and content of the prior art, the differences
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art, the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`prior art, and any objective indicia of non-obviousness. For that reason, I am not
`
`rendering a legal opinion on the ultimate legal question of obviousness. Rather, my
`
`testimony addresses the underlying facts and factual analysis that would support a
`
`legal conclusion of obviousness or non-obviousness, and when I use the term
`
`obvious, I am referring to the perspective of a POSITA at the time of invention.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that to prove that prior art or a combination of prior art
`
`renders a patent obvious, it is necessary to: (1) identify the prior art references, that
`
`singly or in combination, render the patent obvious; (2) specifically identify which
`
`limitations of a patent claim appear in the prior art references; and (3) explain how
`
`the POSITA would have been combined the prior art references in order to render
`
`the invention defined by the patent claim.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 18 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that a finding of obviousness may be supported
`
`by showing that a person of ordinary skill would have had an apparent reason to
`
`combine or modify the prior art references as proposed. I understand that
`
`sometimes this is referred to as a motivation to combine. The apparent reason or
`
`motivation to combine need not be explicitly found in the prior art. On the
`
`contrary, a reason to combine may be based on a variety of factors, such as the
`
`nature of the problem to be solved, the existence of a need or problem known in
`
`the field, common knowledge and design skill in the field, and the ordinary
`
`creativity and common sense of a POSITA.
`
`31.
`
`In some cases, an invention is presumptively obvious where prior art
`
`elements with known functions are combined to produce a predictable result. In
`
`other words, the invention is obvious because it is merely the combination of
`
`known elements producing an expected result. Under some circumstances,
`
`obviousness under §103 may be proved merely by showing that a combination of
`
`elements was obvious to try.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that the obviousness inquiry should guard against
`
`hindsight bias or hindsight reconstruction where after-the-fact reasoning is applied
`
`to combine prior art elements using the claimed invention as a template, without
`
`
`
`11
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 19 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`establishing that, as of the date of the invention, there exists a rationale to combine
`
`the prior art as proposed or that the combination is otherwise obvious.
`
`33.
`
`In assessing obviousness, I have been instructed that a reference must
`
`qualify as analogous art in order to qualify as proper prior art for an obviousness
`
`analysis. I have been informed that a reference qualifies as analogous art with
`
`respect to the claims if it is either: (1) from the same field or endeavor as the
`
`patent; or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
`
`addressed by the invention.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`34. My opinion on the level of ordinary skill in the art is based on the date
`
`of the invention, which I have been informed for my analysis to assume a date no
`
`earlier than January 22, 1999.
`
`35.
`
`In deciding the level of ordinary skill as of the time of the invention, I
`
`considered:
`
`a. The types of problems encountered in the field and the solutions
`
`developed in the field;
`
`b. The sophistication of the technology;
`
`
`
`12
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 20 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`c. The levels of education and experience of persons working in the
`
`field; and
`
`d. My own experience in working with those of skill in the art.
`
`36. Based on my experience in the field and the disclosure of the ’092
`
`Patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA” or “skilled artisan”) in the
`
`field of the ’092 Patent at the time of the invention would have at least a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer
`
`science or equivalent coursework, and at least two years of experience in computer
`
`architecture, networking or storage. Less work experience may be compensated by
`
`a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree, and vice versa.
`
`VI. THE STATE OF THE ART AT THE TIME OF INVENTION
`
`37.
`
`In the 1980s disk drives were considered to be expensive resources
`
`and were generally tied to individual computers. For example, when I interned at
`
`Australia Telecom in 1981-82, the removable disk drive was big – about 30 inches
`
`– across and disk drive space was considered a valuable resource. When I was a
`
`PhD student in the mid-1980s, we time shared a single Vax 11/780 with its own
`
`multi-cabinet scale disk drive storage system.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 21 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`38. Meanwhile the Personal Computer (PC) revolution was occurring with
`
`attendant cost reduction in all PC hardware, from CPUs to disk drives. In 1988,
`
`David Patterson, Garth Gibson and Randy Kratz, all of the University of
`
`California, Berkeley, wrote a seminal paper entitled “A Case for Redundant Arrays
`
`of Inexpensive Disks (RAID)”. (Ex. 1014.) In this paper, they proposed replacing
`
`“Single Large Expensive Disks (SLED)” with “Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive
`
`Disks (RAID) based on magnetic disk technology developed for personal
`
`computers”. (Id. abstract.)
`
`39. Table 1, reproduced below, justifies that proposal. A Conners CP3100
`
`PC disk costs 2-3x less per MB than the IBM and Fujitsu SLEDs. It has lower
`
`throughput (measured as I/Os per second) and worse reliability when it is realized
`
`that multiple PC disk drives are needed to replace each SLED. (Id. p.110.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 22 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`40. They proposed that a traditional disk system be replaced by
`
`commodity parts – figure 1, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 23 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`41. Most of the rest of the paper proposes techniques to improve reliability
`
`(e.g., via redundancy and error correction) and techniques to improve throughput
`
`
`
`(via parallelism).
`
`42.
`
`In the early 1990’s it was realized that storage could be network based
`
`rather than node based. This heralded a transition of storage from using dedicated
`
`channels between hosts and storage to using network communications between
`
`hosts and storage. For example, Randy Katz, still at the University of California,
`
`
`
`16
`
`Cisco Exhibit 1004
`Cisco et al. v. LS Cloud Storage Technologies
`IPR2023-00733, Page 24 of 129
`
`

`

`
`
`Berkeley wrote a paper entitled “Network-Attached Storage Systems” in 1992.
`
`(Ex. 1015.)
`
`43. Katz introduces his paper with the statement “[t]oday, we are
`
`experiencing a major paradigm shift away from centralized mainframes to a
`
`distributed model of computation based on workstations, computation servers, and
`
`storage servers connected by high performance networks”. (Id. p.68.)
`
`44. Katz describes two c