Paper No. 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 7,870,225
`Issued: January 11, 2011
`Filed: February 5, 2010
`
`Inventor: Han-gyoo Kim
`
`DISK SYSTEM ADAPTED TO BE DIRECTLY ATTACHED TO
`NETWORK
`
`________________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2021-00174
`________________________
`PETITION
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,870,225
`________________________
`
`Title:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 7,870,225
`Issued: January 11, 2011
`Filed: February 5, 2010
`
`Inventor: Han-gyoo Kim
`
`DISK SYSTEM ADAPTED TO BE DIRECTLY ATTACHED TO
`NETWORK
`
`________________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2021-00174
`________________________
`PETITION
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,870,225
`________________________
`
`Title:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 6
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Certification the 225 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioners ............. 6
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15 (a)) .............................................. 7
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (§ 42.8(b)) .............................................................. 7
`
`D. No Basis Exists for Discretionary Denial Under Sections 314(a) and
`
`325(d) .................................................................................................... 8
`
`III. CHALLENGED CLAIMS .............................................................................. 8
`
`IV. THE 225 PATENT .......................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Effective Filing Date ............................................................................. 9
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 9
`
`Overview of 225 Patent ......................................................................... 9
`
`Claim Construction.............................................................................. 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“network-attached device (NAD)” ........................................... 10
`
`“general-purpose network traffic” ............................................ 11
`
`“data link frames” ..................................................................... 12
`
`“virtual host bus adapter” .......................................................... 12
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`5.
`
`“device accessing thread,” “device searching thread,” and
`
`“network connection setting thread” ......................................... 14
`
`6.
`
`“[controlling the NAD] in a way indistinguishable from the way
`
`as a physical host bus adapter device controls device” ............ 16
`
`7.
`
`“a device driver, running at the host, for creating a virtual host
`
`bus adapter in software controlling the NAD through the
`
`network” .................................................................................... 17
`
`V.
`
`THE PRINCIPAL PRIOR ART .................................................................... 18
`
`A.
`
`Jewett (EX1005) .................................................................................. 18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Prior Art Status .......................................................................... 18
`
`Overview of Jewett ................................................................... 22
`
`VI. REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF ..................................................... 25
`
`A. Ground 1 – Claims 1 and 5-12: Anticipation by Jewett ..................... 25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 25
`
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 40
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 40
`
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 44
`
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 45
`
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 45
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 46
`
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 47
`
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 52
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2 – Claims 1 and 5-12: Obvious Over Jewett ....................... 53
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 53
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 54
`
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 55
`
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 56
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 57
`
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 57
`
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 58
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3 – Claims 1 and 5-12: Obvious Over Jewett and Smith ...... 58
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 59
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 60
`
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 64
`
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 68
`
`D. Ground 4 – Claims 1 and 8: Obvious Over Jewett and Wang ........... 71
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 71
`
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 75
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5 – Claims 6-12: Obvious Over Jewett and Tackett ............. 76
`
`1.
`
`Claims 6-12 ............................................................................... 76
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 80
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (March 20, 2020) ....................................................... 3
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................................ 3
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 14
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 12
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Microspherix LLC,
`814 Fed. Appx. 575 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................................................................. 14
`Microsoft Corp. v. Synkloud Technologies, LLC,
`1-20-cv-00007 (D. Del.) ....................................................................................... 2
`Synkloud Technologies, LLC v. HP Inc.,
`1-19-cv-01360 (D. Del.) ....................................................................................... 2
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) and (b) ...................................................................................... 71
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e) ............................................................................. 53
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................. 17, 66
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 3
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (a) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ............................................................................................... 1, 2
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225 (“the 225 Patent”) claims a system for a host
`
`computer to receive from and issue commands to a network-attached device.
`
`Jewett is a U.S. Patent with a provisional filed before the priority date of the 225
`
`Patent and describes exactly such a system. In particular, Jewett discloses a host
`
`computer with an operating system, which can be, for example, Linux, that can
`
`access any number of network-attached block level storage servers to write I/O
`
`commands to and read I/O commands from. As demonstrated below, Jewett, either
`
`alone or in combination with other references, renders claims 1 and 5-12 of the 225
`
`Patent unpatentable.
`
`II. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW
`A. Certification the 225 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioners
`
`Petitioners certify that the Patent for which review is sought is available for
`
`inter partes review and Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter
`
`partes review of the 225 Patent (EX1001) on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`Petitioners also certify this petition for inter partes review is not being filed more
`
`than one year from the date of service of a complaint on Petitioners alleging
`
`infringement of a patent. Petitioners also certify that they have not filed a civil
`
`action challenging the validity of a claim of the 225 Patent.
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`B.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15 (a))
`
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 CFR § 42.15 (a)
`
`to Deposit Account No. 50-1597.
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (§ 42.8(b))
`
`The real parties-in-interest of this petition are Microsoft Corporation
`
`(“Microsoft”), located at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052, and HP
`
`Inc. (“HP”), located at 1501 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304.
`
`Lead counsel and backup lead counsel are as follows:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`(202) 736-8492
`
`Backup Lead Counsel
`Scott M. Border
`Reg. No. 77,744
`sborder@sidley.com
`(202) 736-8818
`
`Service on Petitioners may be made by email (iprnotices@sidley.com), mail
`
`or hand delivery to: Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
`
`20005. The fax number for lead and backup counsel is (202) 736-8711.
`
`The 225 Patent is or has been the subject to, or relates to, the following
`
`proceedings:
`
`• Microsoft Corp. v. Synkloud Technologies, LLC, 1-20-cv-00007 (D.
`Del.)
`
`• Synkloud Technologies, LLC v. HP Inc., 1-19-cv-01360 (D. Del.)
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`D. No Basis Exists for Discretionary Denial Under Sections 314(a)
`and 325(d)
`Factors considered under § 314(a) related to parallel district litigations also
`
`weigh against denying institution. For example, each of factors (1)-(4) and (6) of
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (March 20, 2020) are either
`
`neutral or weigh against denial—in the related district court litigation, no trial has
`
`been scheduled, and note that no scheduling order has been entered as of this
`
`filing.
`
`Finally, Petitioners’ challenges do not advance “the same or substantially the
`
`same prior art or arguments previously … presented to the Office.” See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(d); Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586,
`
`Paper 8 (Dec. 15, 2017). The Examiner had neither the primary reference relied on
`
`here (Jewett), nor any similar reference, and also did not have the analysis of Dr.
`
`Houh.
`
`III. CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`Claims 1-12 of the 225 Patent are unpatentable as follows:
`
`Ground Claim(s) Challenged
`1
`1, 5-12
`
`35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
`102
`Jewett
`
`2
`
`1, 5-12
`
`103
`
`Jewett
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`1, 5-12
`
`1, 8
`
`6-12
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`Jewett, Smith
`
`Jewett, Wang
`
`Jewett, Tackett
`
`IV. THE 225 PATENT
`Effective Filing Date
`A.
`Petitioners assume a priority date of October 13, 2000. EX1001, Face.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`B.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the 225 Patent in the 2000
`
`time frame (“a Skilled Artisan”) would have been someone with a bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical, computer engineering, computer science, or related field with
`
`two years of experience in a relevant technical field, such as remote storage
`
`systems or distributed systems. As evidenced by the prior art cited below, such a
`
`person would have been knowledgeable about device drivers, techniques for
`
`remotely accessing and manipulating computer files, and communications over
`
`computer networks such as a local area network or a wide area network.
`
`EX1003,¶47.
`
`C. Overview of 225 Patent
`The 225 Patent discloses a “network-attached disk (NAD) system … that
`
`includes an NAD device for receiving a disk access command from a host through
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`a network.” EX1001, Abstract. The system “features two main components: one
`
`is the NAD device driver 105 at the host and the other is the NAD device 108
`
`attached to the network.” EX1001, 3:56-58. The “[n]etwork-attached disk (NAD)
`
`device driver 105 of the present invention [] controls an NAD device 108
`
`connected through a network adapter device driver 106 and a network 107 such as
`
`Ethernet. The NAD device 108 of the present invention contains one or more disks
`
`109.” EX1001, 3:44-49. “Each disk appears to the host as if it is a local disk to
`
`connected [sic] to the system bus of the host so that each disk can be dynamically
`
`installed or removed. The present invention achieves this by creating a virtual host
`
`bus adapter in purely software means that recognizes an NAD device as if it is
`
`connected to the system bus although there is no physical host bus adapter
`
`connected the NAD.” EX1001, 3:66-4:5.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`Claims in an inter partes review proceeding are construed according to their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning in light of the specification and file history of the
`
`patent in which those claims appear.
`
`“network-attached device (NAD)”
`1.
`The phrase “network-attached device (NAD)” should be construed to mean a
`
`device attached to a network. EX1003,¶¶73-74.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`The 225 Patent sets forth several objects of the “present invention” and
`
`states that “[t]he foregoing and other objects are accomplished by providing a
`
`network-attached disk (NAD) system that includes an NAD device for receiving a
`
`disk access command from a host through a network …” EX1001, 2:3-24. It
`
`further states that the “NAD device includes a disk for storing data, a disk
`
`controller for controlling the disk, and a network adapter for receiving a disk
`
`access command from the host through a network port,” EX1001, 2:28-31; 3:47-4,
`
`and discloses that the “NAD device is to be used like a local disk.” EX1001, 7:4-6.
`
`“general-purpose network traffic”
`2.
`The phrase “general-purpose network traffic” should be construed to mean
`
`storage or other application data carried by a communications link or network.
`
`EX1003,¶75.
`
`The 225 Patent states that the network connecting the NAD device and the
`
`NAD device driver “is an existing general-purpose network for carrying storage
`
`traffic as well as other application traffic. This so called ‘front-end’ network for
`
`carrying general-purpose network traffic is distinguished from a ‘back-end’
`
`network dedicated to storage such as used in the conventional Storage Area
`
`Network (SAN) scheme.” EX1001, 3:49-55.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`A Skilled Artisan would understand that “traffic” is “[t]he load carried by a
`
`communications link or channel.” EX1013, 474; EX1003,¶¶76-77.
`
`“data link frames”
`3.
`The phrase “data link frames” should be construed to mean “units of data
`
`transmitted over a link.” EX1003,¶79.
`
`The 225 Patent notes that “[t]he Open Systems Interface (OSI) model
`
`defines 7 layers of protocols: a physical layer for electrical interface definitions, a
`
`data link layer for communication using data frames … The present invention uses
`
`a data link layer protocol to contain storage commands into [sic] data link frames.”
`
`EX1001, 4:9-18. A Skilled Artisan would understand that, in the OSI model, data
`
`is communicated in the data link layer via units of data called “frames.” EX1013,
`
`207; EX1035, 6:23-35. The 225 Patent also states that “data link frames
`
`containing storage commands are exchanged between the host and the NAD
`
`device.” EX1001, 11:24-26. The “frames can be sent through a network,
`
`and…received through the network.” EX1001, 22:39-47; EX1003,¶80.
`
`“virtual host bus adapter”
`4.
`The phrase “virtual host bus adapter” should be construed to mean a
`
`software adapter that causes the host to recognize a NAD device as if it were
`
`connected to the host through a physical adapter. EX1003,¶81.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`Claim 1 recites a “virtual host bus adapter” that “control[s] the NAD in a
`
`way indistinguishable from the way as a physical host bus adapter device controls
`
`device so that the host recognizes the NAD as if it is a local device connected
`
`directly to the system bus of the host.” EX1001, 23:22-26. Thus, a Skilled Artisan
`
`would understand this claim language to mean that the “virtual host bus adapter”
`
`controls the NAD in the same way that a physical host bus adapter would control
`
`the NAD through “recogniz[ing] the NAD as if it is a local device connected
`
`directly to the system bus of the host.” EX1001, 11:16-21, 23:22-26; EX1003,¶82.
`
`The 225 Patent discloses that “the present invention creates a virtual host
`
`bus adapter in purely software means by modifying a driver at the host so
`
`that the host recognizes the NAD device as if it is connected to the system bus
`
`through a physical host adapter although there is no physical host adapter
`
`connected to the bus.” EX1001, 11:16-21. Upon startup, “NAD devices are
`
`identified during initial hardware scan and their corresponding drivers acting as
`
`a virtual host bus adapter must be generated. EX1001, 7:40-43.1 Thus, the
`
`“virtual host bus adapter” is a modification to the host’s software that allows for
`
`virtual recognition of the NAD as though it were local to the host. EX1003,¶83.
`
`
`
`1 Emphasis added in the petition unless indicated otherwise.
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`A Skilled Artisan would understand that a “bus” is a “set of hardware lines
`
`(conductors) used for data transfer among the components of a computer system.
`
`A bus is essentially a shared highway that connects different parts of the
`
`system…and enables them to transfer information.” EX1013, 68. The 225 Patent
`
`supports this understanding by disclosing that “[t]he NAD bus driver 614
`
`implements a virtual host bus adapter, through which disk I/O operations are to be
`
`done and from a set of NAD devices.” EX1001, 11:57-59. Thus, the commands
`
`are sent over a network bus and the “virtual host bus adapter” is a modification to
`
`the host’s software through which I/O operations are sent to and received from
`
`NAD devices over that network bus. EX1003,¶84.
`
`5.
`
`“device accessing thread,” “device searching thread,” and
`“network connection setting thread”
`The phrases “device accessing thread,” “device searching thread,” and
`
`“network connection setting thread” should be construed as follows:
`
`• A “device accessing thread” is a “single execution of a program for
`
`accessing a device, in which the program is capable of handling multiple
`
`users.
`
`• A "device searching thread” is a “single execution of a program for
`
`searching for devices, in which the program is capable of handling multiple
`
`users.”
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`• A “network connection setting thread” is a “single execution of a program
`
`for setting up a network connection with a device, in which the program is
`
`capable of handling multiple users.” EX1003,¶86
`
`According to the 225 Patent, “[a] thread refers to a single use of a program
`
`that can handle multiple users.” EX1001, 6:57-58. This correlates to what a
`
`Skilled Artisan would understand a “thread” to be. EX1013, 467. The 225 Patent
`
`depicts a “situation where the request function 229, instead of directly issuing a
`
`command, activates a device accessing thread 230 so that the device accessing
`
`thread 230 can issue a command based on the information in the request queue,”
`
`EX1001, 6:53-57. “[I]f the block is not in the buffer, data must be read from the
`
`NAD device.” EX1001, 8:30-31. To accomplish this, “[t]he user thread puts the
`
`request on the request queue, actives an NAD accessing thread 335…responsible
`
`for NAD device control through a request function, and the user thread blocks
`
`itself.” EX1001, 8:31-34. Thus, the “device accessing thread” is a thread that is
`
`used to access the device. This is confirmed by the claim language which states “a
`
`device accessing thread for accessing the NAD device.” EX1001, 23:39-40;
`
`EX1003,¶87.
`
`The 225 Patent discloses that “drivers [at the host] may be generated
`
`automatically by using a device searching thread that periodically identifies NAD
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`devices attached to the network…” EX1001, 7:44-46. Thus, a “device searching
`
`thread” is a thread that is used to search for devices. This is confirmed by the
`
`claim language which states “a device searching thread for searching for a device
`
`attached to the network.” EX1001, 23:40-42; EX1003,¶88.
`
`The 225 Patent gives examples of “network connections between an NAD
`
`device driver and the corresponding NAD device using a connection setting
`
`thread.” EX1001, 8:1-8. Thus, a Skilled Artisan would understand that the
`
`“network connection setting thread” is a thread for setting up a network connection
`
`with a device. This is consistent with the claim language which states “a network
`
`connection setting thread for making a connection between the device driver and
`
`the NAD device.” EX1001, 23:43-45; EX1003,¶89.
`
`6.
`
`“[controlling the NAD] in a way indistinguishable from the
`way as a physical host bus adapter device controls device”
`The phrase “controlling the NAD” needs no interpretation. EX1003,¶90.
`
`However, the phrase “in a way indistinguishable from the way as a physical host
`
`bus adapter controls device” is insufficiently definite and lacking in written
`
`description support. In particular, the phrase “indistinguishable from the way as”
`
`seems, at best, improper grammar, but also uncertain and likely unsupported as to
`
`the word “indistinguishable.” EX1003,¶91.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`However, Patent Owner may argue that the larger phrase “in a way
`
`indistinguishable from the way as a physical host bus adapter controls device”
`
`should be interpreted to mean something like “by responding to the same
`
`commands that a physical host bus adapter would respond to in order to control a
`
`local device.” E.g., EX1001, 11:1-5, 3:66-4:5; EX1003,¶92. We apply this
`
`interpretation below.
`
`7.
`
`“a device driver, running at the host, for creating a virtual
`host bus adapter in software controlling the NAD through
`the network”
`The phrase “a device driver, running at the host, for creating a virtual host
`
`bus adapter in software controlling the NAD through the network” should be
`
`construed to mean a device driver in a host computer, configured to create a
`
`software adapter that causes the host to recognize a NAD device as if it were
`
`connected to the host through a physical adapter for issuing disk operations to the
`
`NAD through the network. EX1003,¶96.
`
`Dr. Houh explains that the ordinary meaning of a “virtual host bus adapter”
`
`is a software adapter that causes the host to recognize a NAD device as if it were
`
`connected to the host through a physical adapter. EX1003, ¶¶97,81. The claim
`
`language here, moreover, requires that it be the host’s device driver that creates the
`
`virtual host bus adapter. EX1001, 23:16-18; EX1003,¶98.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`The 225 Patent also states that “the present invention creates a virtual host
`
`bus adapter in purely software means by modifying a driver at the host…”
`
`EX1001, 11:16-17. Thus, the “virtual host bus adapter” is actually a modification
`
`to the host’s device driver, created “in purely software means.” EX1003,¶99.
`
`The 225 Patent states that “[t]he NAD bus driver 614 implements a virtual
`
`host bus adapter, through which disk I/O operations are to be done and from a set
`
`of NAD devices,” EX1001, 11:57-59, and gives an example of control through its
`
`disclosure that “an NAD device may [be] treated as a local disk per se by a
`
`Windows 2000™ host so that all disk operations exercised by the host control a
`
`local disk, including formatting and partitioning, can be done to the NAD device.”
`
`See EX1001, 11:1-5. Therefore, the concept of “controlling the NAD through the
`
`network” would be understood by a Skilled Artisan to mean issuing disk operations
`
`to the NAD through the network. EX1003,¶100.
`
`V. THE PRINCIPAL PRIOR ART
`Jewett (EX1005)
`A.
`1.
`Prior Art Status
`U.S. Patent No. 7,392,291 to Jewett stems from application No. 09/927,894,
`
`filed August 10, 2001. EX1005, Face. The 894 Application claims priority to
`
`provisional application no. 60/224,664, filed on August 11, 2000. Id.
`
`EX1003,¶101
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`Jewett is entitled to the priority date of its provisional application (i.e.,
`
`August 11, 2000) because the provisional application provides support for at least
`
`one of Jewett’s claims (e.g., claim 33) and all disclosures from Jewett relied on in
`
`this petition are supported in that provisional application. Dynamic Drinkware,
`
`LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Merck Sharp &
`
`Dohme Corp. v. Microspherix LLC, 814 Fed. Appx. 575, 579 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`Jewett Provisional
`
`An important aspect of the architecture is that concurrent input/output
`(I/O) requests from the same host computer are handled over separate
`logical network connections or sockets (preferably TCP/IP sockets).
`For example, a given host can establish two sockets with a given block
`server (storage server), and use one socket to perform one I/O request
`while using the other socket to perform another I/O request. …
`(EX1030, 1:28-2:5)
`
`A host computer 102 may establish multiple logical connections
`(sockets) to a given block server 104, and/or establish sockets to
`multiple different block servers (as discussed below). An important
`benefit of this feature is that it allows multiple I/O requests from the
`same host to be processed concurrently (each over a separate socket)
`in a non-blocking manner if one socket fails, the I/O requests being
`performed over other sockets are not affected. … (EX1030, 5:27-6:2)
`
`The architecture presents the storage resources to the host computers
`102 as a logically contiguous array of bytes which are only accessible
`19
`
`Jewett,
`Claim 33
`A method
`of executing
`an
`input/output
`(I/O)
`request
`received
`from a user-
`level
`process
`running on
`a host
`computer,
`comprising:
`on the host
`computer,
`dividing the
`I/O request
`into
`multiple
`constituent
`I/O
`operations;
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`in blocks (e.g., of 512 bytes). The logical data structures of the
`implementation support byte level access, but disk drives typically
`export blocks which are of a predetermined size, in bytes. Thus, to
`access a given block, a block address (sector number) and a count of
`the number of blocks (sectors) is provided. … On write operations, the
`I/O write data is packaged into a block structure with a uniform and
`predetermined size, on the host side. When a socket is opened up to
`the storage side, the block is sent to the storage location and given an
`address. … EX1030, 6:24-7:3
`A host computer 102 may establish multiple logical connections
`(sockets) to a given block server 104, and/or establish sockets to
`multiple different block servers (as discussed below). An important
`benefit of this feature is that it allows multiple I/O requests from the
`same host to be processed concurrently (each over a separate socket)
`in a non-blocking manner if one socket fails, the I/O requests being
`performed over other sockets are not affected. … (EX1030, 5:27-6:2)
`
`For example, a given host can establish two sockets with a given block
`server (storage server), and use one socket to perform one I/O request
`while using the other socket to perform another I/O request. As a
`result, the failure or postponement of one I/O request does not block or
`interfere with other I/O requests. (EX1030, 2:1-5)
`
`
`20
`
`performing
`the multiple
`constituent
`I/O
`operations
`in parallel
`over
`multiple,
`respective
`logical
`network
`connections
`between the
`host
`computer
`and a target
`storage
`server such
`that I/O data
`is
`transferred
`between the
`host
`computer
`and the
`storage
`server over
`each of the
`logical
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`network
`connections.
`
`(EX1030, Fig. 4)
`
`Jewett Disclosures Cited Herein
`
`(EX1005)
`
`Abstract
`
`1:21-44
`
`1:48-2:38
`
`2:43-49
`
`
`
`Corresponding Provisional Citation
`(EX1030)
`
`1-3
`
`1
`
`1-3
`
`2, 5, 8 11, 14, 15, 17
`
`1:39-49, 5:35-40, 9:1-9:13, 9:27-35,
`
`5, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17
`
`3:49-4:20
`
`4
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`4:21-36
`
`4:37-49
`
`4:50-5:4
`
`5:5-14
`
`5:15-23
`
`5:24-34
`
`5:43-8:20
`
`Fig. 1
`
`Fig. 2
`
`Fig. 3
`
`Fig. 4
`
`Fig. 5
`
`Fig. 6
`
`
`
`4
`
`4-5
`
`5
`
`5
`
`5
`
`5
`
`5-9, 14, 15, 17
`
`Fig. 1
`
`Fig. 2
`
`Fig. 3
`
`Fig. 4
`
`Fig. 5
`
`Fig. 6
`
`EX1003,¶¶102-105.
`
`Jewett is therefore prior art to the 225 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §102(e).
`
`2. Overview of Jewett
`Jewett describes a “network-based storage system [that] comprises one or
`
`more block-level storage servers that connect to, and provide disk storage for, one
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`or more host computers (‘hosts’) over logical network connections (preferably
`
`TCP/IP sockets).” EX1005, Abstract.
`
`Jewett depicts the hardware components of a typical system as “includ[ing] a
`
`host computer 102 (‘host’) and a block-level IP storage server 104 (‘block server’)
`
`interconnected by a network 100 via respective network interface cards 106…” in
`
`Figure 1 (below). EX1005, 3:63-4:2. “[T]he network 100 may be any type or
`
`combination of networks that support TCP/IP sockets…” EX1005, 4:21-25.
`
`
`
`EX1005, Fig. 1.
`
`Jewett details “host side 102 of the software architecture includes an
`
`operating system (O/S) 202 such as Unix, Windows NT, or Linux; a host-side
`
`device driver 204 (‘host driver’) which communicates with the operating system
`
`202; and a reader/writer (RW) component 200a…which communicates with the
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`host driver 204.” EX1005, 4:38-43. Further “[t]he storage side 104 of the
`
`software architecture includes a reader/writer (RW) component 200b and a
`
`storage-side device driver 206 (‘server driver’) that are executed by the CPU
`
`board’s processor 108 (FIG.1). The server driver 206 initiates disk operations in
`
`response to I/O requests received from the server-side RW component 200b.”
`
`EX1005, 4:43-49.
`
`
`
`EX1005, Fig. 2.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
