`
`
`
`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. IPR2021-00175
`________________________
`PETITION
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,870,225
`________________________
`
`Title:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Certification the 225 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioners ............. 1
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15 (a)) .............................................. 1
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (§ 42.8(b)) .............................................................. 2
`
`D. No Basis Exists for Discretionary Denial Under Sections 314(a) and
`
`325(d) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`III. CHALLENGED CLAIMS .............................................................................. 3
`
`IV. THE 225 PATENT .......................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Effective Filing Date ............................................................................. 4
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 4
`
`Overview of 225 Patent ......................................................................... 4
`
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“network-attached device (NAD)” ............................................. 5
`
`“general purpose network traffic” ............................................... 6
`
`“data link frames” ....................................................................... 7
`
`“virtual host bus adapter” ............................................................ 7
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`5.
`
`“[controlling the NAD] in a way indistinguishable from the way
`
`as a physical host bus adapter device controls device” .............. 9
`
`“formatted as local disks” ......................................................... 10
`
`“a device driver, running at the host, for creating a virtual host
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`bus adapter in software controlling the NAD through the
`
`network” .................................................................................... 11
`
`V.
`
`THE PRINCIPAL PRIOR ART .................................................................... 12
`
`A.
`
`Jewett (EX1005) .................................................................................. 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Prior Art Status .......................................................................... 12
`
`Overview of Jewett ................................................................... 16
`
`VI. REQUESTED RELIEF ................................................................................. 19
`
`A. Ground 1 – Claims 1-4 and 13-18: Anticipation by Jewett ................ 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 19
`
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 34
`
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 34
`
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 34
`
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 35
`
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 37
`
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 39
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 39
`
`Claim 17 .................................................................................... 41
`
`10. Claim 18 .................................................................................... 43
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2 – Claims 1-4 and 13-22: Obvious Over Jewett ................... 44
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 44
`
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 45
`
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 46
`
`Claim 17 .................................................................................... 48
`
`Claim 18 .................................................................................... 49
`
`Claim 22 .................................................................................... 50
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3 – Claims 1-4 and 13-22: Obvious Over Jewett and Smith 50
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 51
`
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 53
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 1 and 18-22: Obvious Over Jewett and Wang ...... 55
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 55
`
`Claim 18 .................................................................................... 60
`
`Claim 19 .................................................................................... 67
`
`Claim 20 .................................................................................... 68
`
`Claim 21 .................................................................................... 68
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`6.
`
`Claim 22 .................................................................................... 69
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`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, 6
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................13
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Microspherix LLC,
`814 Fed. Appx. 575 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................13
`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), (b), and (e)...........................................................................50
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) .............................................................................. 16, 20, 55, 56
`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
`
`v
`
`
`
`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 that was 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 1-4 and 13-22 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.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (a). 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.
`
`B.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15 (a))
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`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.)
`
`D. No Basis Exists for Discretionary Denial Under Sections 314(a)
`and 325(d)
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`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, as in the district court litigation noted above no
`
`trial has been scheduled. Based on that court’s usual time to trial in similarly
`
`complex cases, Petitioners do not expect a trial to occur until well after any final
`
`written decision would issue here, 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 1-4 and 13-22 of the 225 Patent are unpatentable as follows:
`
`Ground Claim(s) Challenged
`1
`1-4, 13-18
`
`35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
`102
`Jewett
`
`2
`
`1-4, 13-22
`
`103
`
`Jewett
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`3
`
`4
`
`1-4, 13-22
`
`1, 18-22
`
`103
`
`103
`
`Jewett, Smith
`
`Jewett, Wang
`
`
`
`IV. THE 225 PATENT
`Effective Filing Date
`A.
`The 225 Patent claims and 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
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`a network.” Id., 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 “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. We provide such constructions in this
`
`section, and apply them in the analysis below.
`
`1.
`
`“network-attached device (NAD)”
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`The phrase “network-attached device (NAD)” should be construed to mean a
`
`device attached to a network. EX1003,¶73.
`
`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; see
`
`also id., 3:47-49. The 225 Patent also discloses that the “NAD device is to be used
`
`like a local disk.” EX1001, 7:4-6; EX1003,¶74.
`
`“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’
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`network dedicated to storage such as used in the conventional Storage Area
`
`Network (SAN) scheme.” EX1001, 3:49-55; EX1003,¶76.
`
`A Skilled Artisan would understand that “traffic” is “[t]he load carried by a
`
`communications link or channel.” EX1013, 474; EX1003,¶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.
`
`4.
`
`“virtual host bus adapter”
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`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.
`
`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 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
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`“[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
`
`
`
`1 Emphasis added in the petition unless indicated otherwise.
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`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.
`
`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.” See, e.g., EX1001, 11:1-5, 3:66-4:5; EX1003,¶92. We apply this
`
`interpretation below.
`
`“formatted as local disks”
`6.
`The phrase “one or more disks are formatted as local disks” to mean one or
`
`more disks that are formatted using the same process as that through which a local
`
`disk is formatted. EX1003,¶93.
`
`This phrase is vague as to whether the disks themselves are formatted as
`
`local disks or formatted using a similar process as that through which local disks
`
`are formatted. EX1003,¶94. However, the 225 Patent does not discuss the format
`
`of a disk itself, but, rather, discusses the formatting process, drawing similarities
`
`between the formatting process used for a local disk and that used for a NAD.
`
`EX1001, 6:7-11, 11:1-5, 21:54-56. Thus, in the context of the 225 Patent, a
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`Skilled Artisan would understand “one or more disks are formatted as local disks”
`
`to mean one or more disks that are formatted using the same process as that
`
`through which a local disk is formatted. EX1003,¶95.
`
`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.
`
`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…”
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`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 et al. (“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
`
`As shown below, Jewett is entitled to the priority date of its provisional
`
`application (i.e., August 11, 2000) because the provisional application provides
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`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
`in blocks (e.g., of 512 bytes). The logical data structures of the
`implementation support byte level access, but disk drives typically
`13
`
`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
`
`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)
`
`
`14
`
`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
`network
`connections.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`(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
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`“The host RW 200a operates generally by ‘reading’ I/O requests from the
`
`host driver 204, and ‘writing’ these requests onto the network 100.” EX1005,
`
`4:54-56. “Similarly, the storage RW 200b operates generally by reading I/O
`
`requests from the network 100 and writing these requests to the server drier 206.”
`
`EX1005, 4:56-59.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`VI. REQUESTED RELIEF
`As set forth below, the prior art analyzed here satisfies the claim elements
`
`identified below and in the attached claim listing (Attachment C). Additional
`
`grounds, building on and incorporating the basic analysis addressing arguments
`
`Patent Owner may raise are also included below.
`
`A. Ground 1 – Claims 1-4 and 13-18: Anticipation by Jewett
`1.
`Claim 1
`a.
`Preamble
`
`(i) NAD access system
`As demonstrated in more detail below, Jewett discloses a system for
`
`accessing a network attached device, i.e., a block storage server, and therefore
`
`discloses “[a] network-attached device (NAD) access system” as claimed. For
`
`example, Jewett discloses a “network-based storage system [that] comprises one or
`
`more block-level storage servers that connect to, and provide disk storage for one
`
`or more host computers…over logical network connections.” EX1005, Abstract,
`
`Figs. 1-4; EX1003,¶114.
`
`(ii) Host
`Jewett discloses a “system [that] includes a host computer 102 [“host”] …
`
`and a block level IP storage server…interconnected by a network 100 via
`
`respective network interface cards 106 …” EX1005, 3:64-67. Jewett further states
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`that the host includes an operating system, such as Unix, Windows NT, or Linux.
`
`EX1005, 4:38-43; EX1003,¶115.
`
`Jewett’s descriptions of its host computer and operating system disclose an
`
`“internal host system bus.”