UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`———————
`
`Case IPR2017-01933
`
`———————
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,478,799
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................. 5 
`
`I.  Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................... 13 
`
`A.  Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................... 13 
`
`B.  Related Matters ........................................................................................ 13 
`
`C.  Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ............................. 13 
`
`II.  Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 14 
`
`III.  Introduction ...................................................................................................... 14 
`
`IV.  Relief Requested and Overview of Reasons Therefor .................................... 15 
`
`V.  Description of the Technology ........................................................................ 15 
`
`A.  Evolution of Computer Storage Systems ................................................ 15 
`
`B.  Cryptographic Hash ................................................................................. 16 
`
`C.  The ’799 Patent ........................................................................................ 17 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Summary of the ’799 Patent ............................................................ 17 
`
`Prosecution History ......................................................................... 20 
`
`Previous IPR Proceedings ............................................................... 20 
`
`D.  Page Citations and Quotations ................................................................ 21 
`
`VI.  Identification of Challenges and Claim Construction ..................................... 21 
`
`A.  Challenged Claims ................................................................................... 21 
`
`B.  Claim Construction .................................................................................. 21 
`
`C.  Statutory Grounds for Challenges ........................................................... 24 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`D.  Petitioner’s Challenges Are Not Cumulative or Duplicative of Prior
`Patent Office Proceedings ....................................................................... 25 
`
`E. 
`
`Identification of How the Construed Claims Are Unpatentable ............. 26 
`
`1.  Challenge #1: Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, 17-22, 27, 28, and 31-35
`are obvious over Muthitacharoen and Dabek ................................. 26 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`Summary of Muthitacharoen .................................................. 26 
`
`Summary of Dabek. ................................................................ 28 
`
`c.  Reasons to Combine Muthitacharoen and Dabek ................... 29 
`
`d.  Detailed Claim Analysis ......................................................... 31 
`
`Claim 1 .................................................................................... 31 
`
`2.  Challenge #2: Claims 5, 6 are unpatentable as being obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Muthitacharoen, Dabek, and
`Agrawal ........................................................................................... 71 
`
`a.  Brief summary of Agrawal ..................................................... 71 
`
`b.  Reasons to Combine Muthitacharoen/Dabek with Agrawal .. 72 
`
`c.  Detailed Claim Analysis ......................................................... 72 
`
`3.  Challenge #3: Claims 10, 15, and 26 are unpatentable as being
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Muthitacharoen, Dabek,
`and McKusick ................................................................................. 74 
`
`a.  Brief summary of McKusick .................................................. 74 
`
`b.  Reasons to Combine Muthitacharoen/Dabek with
`McKusick ................................................................................ 75 
`
`c.  Detailed Claim Analysis ......................................................... 76 
`
`4.  Challenge #4: Claims 29 and 30 are obvious over
`Muthitacharoen, Dabek, and Bunte. ................................................ 81 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`a.  Brief summary of Bunte ......................................................... 81 
`
`b.  Reasons to Combine Muthitacharoen/Dabek with Bunte ....... 81 
`
`c.  Detailed Claim Analysis ......................................................... 83 
`
`5.  Challenge #5: Claims 16 and 36 are unpatentable as being
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Muthitacharoen, Dabek,
`and Bondurant ................................................................................. 85 
`
`a.  Brief summary of Bondurant .................................................. 85 
`
`b.  Reasons to Combine Muthitacharoen/Dabek with
`Bondurant ................................................................................ 86 
`
`c.  Detailed Claim Analysis ......................................................... 87 
`
`VII.  Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 90 
`
`VIII. Certificate of Word Count ............................................................................... 91 
`
`IX.  Certificate of Service ....................................................................................... 92 
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`August 11, 2017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799 (“the ’799 patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’799 patent
`
`U.S. Prov. App. No. 61/269,633 (“the ’633 provisional”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Prashant Shenoy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Prashant Shenoy
`
`Intentionally omitted
`
`Athicha Muthitacharoen, et al., “Ivy: A Read/Write Peer-to-Peer
`
`File System,” Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Operating
`
`Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI ’02), OPERATING
`
`SYSTEMS REVIEW, Vol. 36, Issue SI (Winter 2002).
`
`1008
`
`Frank Dabek, et al., “Wide-area cooperative storage with CFS,”
`
`Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems
`
`Principles (SOSP’01), OPERATING SYSTEMS REVIEW, Vol. 35, No. 5
`
`(Dec. 2001).
`
`1009
`
`Nitin Agrawal, et al., “Design Tradeoffs for SSD Performance,”
`
`USENIX’08: 2008 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (Jun. 25,
`
`2008).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,028,106 to Bondurant et al. (“Bondurant”)
`
`Marshall Kirk McKusick, et al., THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
`
`OF THE FREEBSD OPERATING SYSTEM (2005).
`
`1012
`
`“Robust and Efficient Data Management for a Distributed Hash
`
`Table” by Josh Cates (“Cates”).
`
`1013
`
`Marice J. Bach, THE DESIGN OF THE UNIX OPERATING SYSTEM
`
`(1986) (selected pages).
`
`1014
`
`Prashant Shenoy, et al., “Symphony: An Integrated Multimedia File
`
`System,” Proceedings of SPIE 3310, Multimedia Computing and
`
`Networking 1998.
`
`1015
`
`Garth Gibson, et al., “A Cost-Effective, High-Bandwidth Storage
`
`Architecture,” PROCEEDINGS OF THE 8TH CONFERENCE ON
`
`ARCHITECTURAL SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES AND
`
`OPERATING SYSTEMS (1998).
`
`1016
`
`Mike Mesnier, et al., “Object-Based Storage,” IEEE
`
`COMMUNICATION MAGAZINE (Aug. 2003).
`
`1017
`
`R. Rivest, “The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm,” Request for
`
`Comments 1321, Internet Engineering Task Force (Apr. 1992).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`1018
`
`Sean Quinlan, et al., “Venti: a new approach to archival storage,”
`
`PROCEEDINGS OF FAST 2002 CONFERENCE OF FILE AND STORAGE
`
`TECHNOLOGIES (2002).
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2016-01779 (Sept. 14, 2016).
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2016-01779 (Dec. 27, 2016).
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2016-01780 (Sept. 14, 2016).
`
`Patent Owner Response, IPR2016-01780 (Dec. 27, 2016).
`
`Bruce Eckel, C++ INSIDE & OUT (1992) (selected pages).
`
`Mendel Rosenblum, THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A LOG-
`
`STRUCTURED FILE SYSTEM (1995) (selected pages).
`
`1025
`
`WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD COMPUTER DICTIONARY, 10th Ed. (2003)
`
`(selected pages).
`
`1026
`
`MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY, 5th Ed. (2002) (selected
`
`pages).
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`AMD Athlon Processor Technical Brief, Rev. D (Dec. 1999).
`
`Stevens, et al., “The first collision for full SHA-1,” Cryptology
`
`ePrint Archive, Report 2017/190 (2017).
`
`1029
`
`Andrew S. Tanenbaum, MODERN OPERATING SYSTEMS, 2d Ed.
`
`(2001) (selected pages).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`1030
`
`Alan Freedman, COMPUTER DESKTOP ENCYCLOPEDIA, 9th Ed. (2001)
`
`(selected pages).
`
`1031
`
`Sang-Won Lee, et al., “A Case for Flash Memory SSD in Enterprise
`
`Database Applications,” Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD
`
`International Conference on Management of Data (2008).
`
`1032
`
`Bruce Schneier, APPLIED CRYPTOGRAPHY, 2d Ed. (1996) (selected
`
`pages).
`
`1033
`
`Martin Placek, “Storage Exchange: A Global Platform for Trading
`
`Distributed Storage Services,” Master of Engineering Science
`
`Thesis, The University of Melbourne (Jul, 2006).
`
`1034
`
`Ragib Hasan, et al., “A Survey of Peer-to-Peer Storage Techniques
`
`for Distributed File Systems,” International Conference on
`
`Information Technology: Coding and Computing (2005).
`
`1035
`
`Frequently Asked Questions for FreeBSD 2.X, 3.X and 4.X,
`
`archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20020404064240/http://
`
`www.freebsd.org:80/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/install.html.
`
`AMD Athlon Processor Module Data Sheet, Rev. M (Jun. 2000).
`
`AMD Athlon™ Processor Quick Reference FAQ (Feb. 3, 2000).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,103,595 to Anastasiadis, et al.
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,140,786 to Bunte et al.
`
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, IPR2016-
`
`01779 (March 22, 2017).
`
`1041
`
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, IPR2016-
`
`01780 (March 21, 2017).
`
`1042
`
`MARC Record Information for Operating Systems Review –
`
`Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems
`
`Design and Implementation (OSDI’02), available at the WRLC
`
`online catalog, accessed July 20, 2017.
`
`1043
`
`Bibliographic Record Information for Operating Systems Review –
`
`Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems
`
`Design and Implementation (OSDI’02), available at the WRLC
`
`online catalog, accessed July 20, 2017.
`
`1044
`
`MARC Record Information for Operating Systems Review –
`
`Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems
`
`Principles (SOSO’01), available at the online catalog of the Library
`
`of Congress, accessed July 31, 2017.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`1045
`
`Bibliographic Record Information for Operating Systems Review –
`
`Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems
`
`Principles (SOSO’01), available at the online catalog of the Library
`
`of Congress, accessed July 31, 2017.
`
`1046
`
`Scans of Issue, Operating Systems Review – Proceedings of the 18th
`
`ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSO’01), Vol.
`
`35, No. 5, pp. 202-15, obtained from a CD-ROM from Auburn
`
`University.
`
`1047
`
`MARC Record Information for Operating Systems Review –
`
`Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems
`
`Principles (SOSO’01) CD-ROM, available at the Auburn University
`
`Library online catalog, accessed July 28, 2017.
`
`1048
`
`Bibliographic Record Information for Operating Systems Review –
`
`Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems
`
`Principles (SOSO’01) CD-ROM, available at the Auburn University
`
`Library online catalog, accessed July 28, 2017.
`
`1049
`
`Scan of CD-ROM and CD-ROM Case, Operating Systems Review –
`
`Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems
`
`Principles (SOSO’01) CD-ROM obtained from the Auburn
`
`University Library.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`1050
`
`Byung-Gon Chun, et al., “Efficient Replica Maintenance for
`
`Distributed Storage Systems,” PROCEEDINGS OF NSDI ’06: 3RD
`
`SYMPOSIUM ON NETWORKED SYSTEMS DESIGN & IMPLEMENTATION
`
`(2006).
`
`1051
`
`Scanned pages of Dabek, F., et al., 2001, “Wide-area cooperative
`
`storage with CFS,” Operating Systems Review – Proceedings of the
`
`18th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSO’01),
`
`Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 202-15, obtained from a CD-ROM from Auburn
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`
`University.
`
`Intentionally omitted.
`
`Intentionally omitted.
`
`Declaration of Ingrid Hsieh-Yee, PhD Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Declaration of Michele Nelson Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Declaration of David Bader Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`MARC Record Information for THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
`
`OF THE FREEBSD OPERATING SYSTEM (2005), available at the online
`
`catalog of the Library of Congress, accessed August 3, 2017.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`1058
`
`Bibliographic Record Information for THE DESIGN AND
`
`IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FREEBSD OPERATING SYSTEM (2005),
`
`available at the online catalog of the Library of Congress, accessed
`
`August 3, 2017.
`
`1059
`
`Scanned pages of Marshall Kirk McKusick, et al., THE DESIGN AND
`
`IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FREEBSD OPERATING SYSTEM (2005),
`
`obtained from the George Mason University Library.
`
`1060
`
`MARC Record Information for THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
`
`OF THE FREEBSD OPERATING SYSTEM (2005), available at the online
`
`catalog of the George Mason University Library, accessed August 3,
`
`2017.
`
`1061
`
`Bibliographic Record Information for THE DESIGN AND
`
`IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FREEBSD OPERATING SYSTEM (2005),
`
`available at the online catalog of the George Mason University
`
`Library, accessed August 3, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`I. Mandatory Notices
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The Petitioner and real party in interest is Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`As of the filing date of this petition and to the best knowledge of the
`
`Petitioner, U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799 (“the ’799 patent,” CSCO-1001) has been
`
`involved in the following litigation filed by SimpliVity Corp. (“SimpliVity”):
`
`SimpliVity Corp. v. Springpath Inc., No. 4-15-cv-13345 (D. Mass 2016). The ’799
`
`patent was also the subject of two prior inter partes review proceedings—
`
`IPR2016-01779 and IPR2016-01780—both filed by Springpath, Inc.
`
`(“Springpath”).
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`David L. McCombs
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Theodore M. Foster
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`214-651-5533
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 32,271
`
`
`972-739-8649
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 57,456
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Philip W. Woo
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Pranay Pattani
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`
`II. Grounds for Standing
`
`
`650-687-8818
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`philip.woo.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 39,880
`
`
`972-739-6975
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`pranay.pattani.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 66,587
`
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’799 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`III.
`
`Introduction
`
`The ’799 patent generally relates to computer storage systems, and in
`
`particular data structures for naming and storing files. According to the patent,
`
`previous file systems had tightly controlled what content was stored where,
`
`resulting in an architecture that was difficult to extend to modern storage needs.
`
`The ‘799 patent describes a file system based on a flexible “object” storage
`
`concept. But object-based file systems were already known in the art before the
`
`priority date of the ’799 patent. Because the ’799 patent claims technology that
`
`was already known, its claims are unpatentable.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`IV. Relief Requested and Overview of Reasons Therefor
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`
`analysis, institute an inter partes review trial of claims 1-22 and 26-36 of the ’799
`
`patent (the “Challenged Claims”), and cancel those claims as unpatentable. This
`
`petition and the declaration of Dr. Prashant Shenoy explain how the prior art would
`
`have rendered obvious the Challenged Claims to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (POSITA) when the ’799 patent was filed.
`
`V. Description of the Technology
`
`A. Evolution of Computer Storage Systems
`
`Before the priority date of the ’799 patent, computer storage systems—
`
`including devices such as disk drives—were well-known. CSCO-1004, ¶¶21-22.
`
`Such storage devices allowed data to be stored in granularity of blocks, each block
`
`having a unique address for access. CSCO-1004, ¶23. As computers’ storage
`
`needs evolved over time, new techniques for organizing and storing data were
`
`explored. By the early 2000s, many individuals were working on storage
`
`techniques that came to be known as object-based storage systems. CSCO-1004,
`
`¶24-29; see generally CSCO-1034.
`
`As computer storage systems evolved from block-based to object-based file
`
`systems, the terminology used to describe them also evolved. CSCO-1004, ¶¶29-
`
`36. Initially, some people in the field continued to use the term “block” to refer to
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`the new file system constructs. CSCO-1004, ¶36; CSCO-1008, p.202 (“DHash —
`
`Stores unstructured data blocks”); CSCO-1007, pp.34, 35, Fig. 2. Some
`
`individuals would use multiple terms almost interchangeably, allowing context to
`
`clarify. CSCO-1004, ¶36; CSCO-1034, pp.3, 4. Eventually, those in the art came
`
`to use the term “object” when discussing the new file system constructs. CSCO-
`
`1004, ¶¶36-38; CSCO-1050, p.50 (“DHash stores the copies of all the objects…”);
`
`CSCO-1015, p.93, Fig. 1; CSCO-1016, pp.84, 87; see also CSCO-1056, ¶¶12-13,
`
`24 (showing articles are prior art). By the time of the ’799 patent, the field had
`
`settled on the terminology to distinguish “blocks” from “objects,” but it must be
`
`remembered that this was not always the case, especially when considering papers
`
`published earlier in the development of object-based storage. CSCO-1004, ¶¶36-
`
`38.
`
`B. Cryptographic Hash
`
`A POSITA would have been familiar with cryptographic hash functions,
`
`which were well-known before the priority date of the ’799 patent. CSCO-1004,
`
`¶¶39-41; CSCO-1018, p.2; CSCO-1032, p.30. A hash function is a function that
`
`maps any input to a fixed size output, also known as a “fingerprint,” “hash digest,”
`
`or simply “hash.” CSCO-1004, ¶¶39-40; CSCO-1017, p.1; CSCO-1018, pp.3, 4;
`
`CSCO-1032, p.30. A cryptographic hash function has a very low probability of
`
`two inputs producing the same hash output, making it suitable for cryptographic
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`purposes. CSCO-1004, ¶39. Cryptographic hash functions have been used for
`
`many decades. CSCO-1004, ¶40; CSCO-1007, p.32; CSCO-1018, pp.2, 3; CSCO-
`
`1032, p.30. For example, Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA) is a family of
`
`cryptographic hash functions (including SHA-1) developed in the 1990s. CSCO-
`
`1004, ¶¶40-41; CSCO-1007, p.32; CSCO-1018, p.4; CSCO-1028, Abstract.
`
`C. The ’799 Patent
`
`1. Summary of the ’799 Patent
`
`The ’799 patent relates to “computer file system data structures and to
`
`methods and apparatus for the naming and storing of files.” CSCO-1001, 1:6-8.
`
`The ’799 patent alleges that legacy (prior art) file systems exercise “tight control of
`
`the what (content) and the where (placement of data),” which “results in an
`
`architecture that is difficult to extend to modern storage needs.” Id., 6:57-61.
`
`To alleviate the alleged inefficiencies in prior art file systems, the ’799
`
`patent purports to provide “new data structures … for implanting a new file
`
`system.” Id., 6:66-7:1. The ’799 file system includes a namespace file system and
`
`an object store, as illustrated in Fig. 1:
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`
`
`
`
`Namespace file system
`
`Object store
`
`
`
`CSCO-1004, ¶¶43-44; CSCO-1001, Fig. 1 (annotated).
`
`Like admitted prior art file systems, the namespace file system described in
`
`the ’799 patent “has files, a directory structure, links, a superblock, and so forth.”
`
`CSCO-1001, 8:48-49, 6:21-30, 6:36-43. The patent attempts to differentiate its
`
`system from the prior art, in that “the namespace file system doesn’t contain any
`
`data directly, instead all data is stored in objects.” CSCO-1001, 8:50-51.
`
`The ’799 patent describes an “object store,” which in one embodiment “is a
`
`flat collection of opaque data (objects).” Id., 8:9-10. “Each object is unique” and
`
`“may be of varying size.” Id., 8:10, 11:2-5. “The object may be raw data, or
`
`metadata (e.g., a record of the creation of and any changes to the raw data).” Id.,
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`15:35-37. Fig. 2 illustrates the object store 108 in further detail:
`
`
`
`
`
`Objects
`
`
`
`CSCO-1004, ¶¶45-46; CSCO-1001, Fig. 2 (annotated).
`
`In the ’799 patent, the name of an object is derived from the object’s content
`
`using, for example, a cryptographic hash. See CSCO-1001, 7:32-35, 8:12-16.
`
`“This enables the object name to be globally unique and identifiable, i.e., a
`
`fingerprint of the [object’s] content.” CSCO-1001, 7:33-36. The ’799 patent
`
`gives, as an example, the Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA) hash function, which it
`
`describes as providing a “sufficiently strong cryptographic hash [that] is acceptable
`
`for generating object names (fingerprints).” CSCO-1001, 8:16-21. The namespace
`
`file system uses the globally unique object fingerprint (i.e., object name) to access
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`objects stored in the object store. CSCO-1001, 15:65-16:3. This is accomplished
`
`with various mapping structures, which “map” object fingerprints to the underlying
`
`objects. See, e.g., CSCO-1001, Abstract, 7:7-67, 13:37-38.
`
`2. Prosecution History
`
`The ’799 patent issued from U.S. App. No. 12/823,922 filed on June 25,
`
`2010, claiming the benefit of U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/269,633, filed on June
`
`26, 2009. CSCO-1001. During prosecution, the Examiner rejected the claims in
`
`light of various prior art references.1 CSCO-1002, pp.116, 126-127, 301. The
`
`applicant amended the claims to require a mapping system based on objects, with
`
`each object having a fingerprint derived from its contents. In particular, the claims
`
`were amended to recite “an inode map object,” “directory objects comprising a
`
`mapping of inode numbers and file names,” and “each of the inode map object and
`
`directory object has its own object fingerprint derived from the content of the
`
`respective object.” CSCO-1002, pp.48, 148.
`
`3. Previous IPR Proceedings
`
`The ’799 patent was the subject of two prior IPR proceedings. See CSCO-
`
`1019, p.2; CSCO-1021, p.2. The Office denied both IPR petitions. See CSCO-
`
`1040, p.14; CSCO-1041, p.14.
`
`
`1The applicants also overcame rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112.
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`D. Page Citations and Quotations
`
`Petitioner cites to exhibits’ original page numbers where possible. Unless
`
`otherwise indicated, bold italic emphasis in quoted material has been added.
`
`Claim language is quoted in italics throughout to distinguish it from other quoted
`
`material.
`
`VI.
`
`Identification of Challenges and Claim Construction
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-22 and 26-36.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`This petition applies the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable
`
`construction, claim terms are given their ordinary meaning as would be understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Petitioner may
`
`advocate a different claim interpretation in forums applying a different standard.
`
`Constructions for some terms in the claims have been previously provided
`
`by the Patent Owner in the prior IPR proceedings, as discussed below. For terms
`
`not addressed below, Petitioner submits that no specific construction is necessary
`
`for this proceeding.
`
`1.
`
`“namespace file system” (all claims)
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`The ’799 patent recites the term “namespace file system” in the claims and
`
`specification. The ’799 patent describes that, in one embodiment, a “namespace
`
`file system… has files, a directory structure, links, a superblock, and so forth.”
`
`CSCO-1001, 8:48-49. The ’799 patent, however, does not provide an express
`
`definition for a “namespace file system.” See id.
`
`In the two previous IPR proceedings against the ’799 patent, the petitioner
`
`proposed the following construction: “The term ‘namespace file system’ should be
`
`construed to mean ‘a file system that accesses data and metadata as objects that are
`
`referred to by name.’” CSCO-1019, pp.23-24, CSCO-1021, pp.25-26. The patent
`
`owner disagreed, taking the position that “[t]he ’799 Patent does not provide a
`
`special definition of ‘namespace file system’ that strays from the well-understood
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of the term.” CSCO-1020, p.22, CSCO-1022, p.25.
`
`According to the patent owner, the well understood meaning of the term
`
`“namespace file system” in the art of computer science at large, and specifically in
`
`the file systems space, is “a file system that uses names.” Id.
`
`This petition applies the Patent Owner’s claim construction of “namespace
`
`file system” as meaning “a file system that uses names.” CSCO-1004, ¶¶75-79.
`
`2.
`
`“object” (all claims)
`
`As of the ’799 patent’s priority date, the term “object” had a well understood
`
`meaning to a POSITA. CSCO-1004, ¶80. The ’799 patent does not specially
`
`22
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`define “object,” but rather uses the term according to its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning. CSCO-1004, ¶80. This is confirmed by the patent owner in the prior
`
`IPR proceedings. CSCO-1020, p.13; CSCO-1022, p.16. As such, the term
`
`“object” in the ’799 patent should have its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`In the prior IPR proceedings, however, the patent owner argued that “object”
`
`stands in contrast to “block” as follows:
`
`[A] block of a block storage system should be understood as “a
`generally fixed sized portion of a disk.” An “object,” by
`contrast, is not associated with a fixed amount of disk space; it
`simply means “a logical abstraction of variable size of data,
`such as a file.”
`CSCO-1020, p.15, CSCO-1022, p.17.
`
`This petition applies the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “object.”
`
`CSCO-1004, ¶¶81-85. However, as also discussed below, the prior art also renders
`
`the claims obvious under the Patent Owner’s alternative construction of “a logical
`
`abstraction of variable size of data, such as a file.” CSCO-1004, ¶¶81-85, 194-197.
`
`3.
`
`“program code means which, when executed by a process, performs
`the steps of method claim 19” (claim 27)
`
`This is a means-plus-function limitation. The corresponding structure in the
`
`specification is a computer program written in any form of programming language.
`
`CSCO-1001, 16:56-66; CSCO-1004, ¶¶87-88. Accordingly, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation is “a computer program that, when executed, performs
`
`23
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`the steps of claim 19.” CSCO-1004, ¶88.
`
`C. Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, 17-22, 27, 28, and 31-35 are obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over “Ivy: A Read/Write Peer-to-Peer File System,”
`
`authored by Muthitacharoen et al. (“Muthitacharoen,” CSCO-1007), and “Wide-
`
`area cooperative storage with CFS,” authored by Dabek et al. (“Dabek,” CSCO-
`
`1008).
`
`Muthitacharoen was published in the Winter 2002 special issue of Operating
`
`Systems Review journal, which was received by the George Washington University
`
`Library on April 3, 2003, and available to the public shortly thereafter. CSCO-
`
`1054, ¶¶16, 24; see generally, CSCO-1054, ¶¶16-27. Dabek was published in the
`
`December 2001 issue of Operating Systems Review journal, which was received by
`
`the Library of Congress on October 29, 2001, and was available to the public
`
`shortly thereafter. CSCO-1054, ¶¶28, 36; see generally, CSCO-1054, ¶¶28-48.
`
`Accordingly, Muthitacharoen and Dabek are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 5 and 6 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Muthitacharoen, Dabek, and “Design Tradeoffs for SSD Performance,” authored
`
`by Agrawal et al. (“Agrawal,” CSCO-1009). Agrawal was presented at a
`
`conference, published the proceedings given to conference attendees, and
`
`published on the USENIX website on June 25, 2008. CSCO-1055, ¶¶13, 15, 18;
`
`24
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`see generally, CSCO-1055, ¶¶3-19. Agrawal is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Challenge #3: Claims 10, 15, and 26 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over Muthitacharoen, Dabek, and THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
`
`FREEBSD OPERATING SYSTEM by Marshal McKusick et al. (“McKusick,” CSCO-
`
`1011). McKusick was accessible to the public at the Library of Congress around
`
`November 26, 2004, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). CSCO-1054, ¶56;
`
`see generally, CSCO-1054, ¶¶49-64.
`
`Challenge #4: Claims 29 and 30 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Muthitacharoen, Dabek, and U.S. Patent No. 8,140,786 to Bunte et al. (“Bunte,”
`
`CSCO-1039). Bunte was filed on December 4, 2007, and published as
`
`US2008/0229037 on September 18, 2008, and is therefore prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§102(a) and (e).
`
`Challenge #5: Claims 16 and 36 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Muthitacharoen, Dabek, and U.S. Patent No. 8,028,106 to Bondurant et al.
`
`(“Bondurant,” CSCO-1010). Bondurant was filed on July 3, 2008, published as
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2009/0013140 on January 8, 2009, and is therefore prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§102(a) and (e).
`
`D. Petitioner’s Challenges Are Not Cumulative or Duplicative of Prior
`Patent Office Proceedings
`
`This petition is Petitioner’s first challenge, of any kind, raised against the
`
`’799 patent at the Patent Office. Furthermore, this petition presents new arguments
`
`25
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799
`
`and new references never previously considered by the Office for any claim.
`
`Specifically, the Office has never evaluated Muthitacharoen, Dabek, Agrawal,
`
`McKusick, Bunte, or Bondurant regarding the ’799 patent. Additionally, the prior
`
`IPR proceedings challenged only on a subset of claims compared to the claims
`
`challenged in this petition. Finally, the prior IPR proceedings did not benefit from
`
`analysis and explanation of the prior art provided by Dr. Shenoy. See CSCO-1004.
`
`The previous IPR proceedings are therefore no basis for denying this petition under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because “those cases do not address the merits of any ground
`
`raised in the Petition[].” See IPR2015-00547, Paper 25 at 23.
`
`E. Identification of How the Constr