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.
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2021-00174 and IPR2021-00175
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`____________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ZAYDOON (“JAY”) JAWADI
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00174 and IPR2021-00175
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................... 1
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED ................................................................................ 6
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING ............................................................................. 7
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................ 7
`
`V. OPINIONS ........................................................................................................... 8
`
`A. Independent Claim 1 Is Not Obvious in View of Jewett Alone and/or in
`Combination with Smith or Wang .......................................................................... 9
`
`a. Independent Claim 1: Virtual Host Bus Adapter ........................................10
`
`i. Virtual Host Bus Adapter in Claim 1 of the ’225 Patent .........................10
`
`ii. Goals of the Virtual Host Bus Adapter in the ’225 Patent ...................11
`
`iii. Description of the Virtual Host Bus Adapter in the ’225 Patent ..........12
`
`1. Internal Host System Bus ......................................................................12
`
`2. Physical Host Bus Adapter ...................................................................15
`
`3. Virtual Host Bus Adapter ......................................................................17
`
`4. Functions Performed by the Virtual Host Bus Adapter ........................18
`
`5. Installation of the Virtual Host Bus Adapter ........................................19
`
`6. Preparation and Usage of the Virtual Host Bus Adapter ......................20
`
`7. Implementation of the Virtual Host Bus Adapter under UNIX ............21
`
`8. Implementation of the Virtual Host Bus Adapter under Windows ......22
`
`9. The Relationship between Internal Host System Bus, Physical Host
`Bus Adapter, and Virtual Host Bus Adapter ...............................................22
`
`iv.
`
`Jewett Does Not Disclose Virtual Host Bus Adapter ...........................24
`
`v.
`
`Jewett Does Not Disclose Bus, Adapter, or Virtual Host Bus Adapter 24
`
`1. Jewett Does Not Disclose Bus ..............................................................24
`
`2. Jewett Does Not Disclose Adapter .......................................................25
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`3. Jewett Does Not Disclose Virtual Host Bus Adapter ...........................26
`
`vi.
`
`Jewett Does Not Disclose Descriptions of Virtual Host Bus Adapter..26
`
`vii. Petitioners’ Jewett Citations and Arguments Do Not Show Virtual Host
`Bus Adapter ...................................................................................................27
`
`viii. Petitioners’ Construction of Virtual Host Bus Adapter Is Improper .29
`
`1. Petitioners’ Construction Ignores the Virtual Host Bus Adapter
`Descriptions .................................................................................................29
`
`2. Petitioners’ Construction Relies on another Limitation of Claim 1 .....30
`
`3. Jewett Does Not Disclose Virtual Host Bus Adapter under Petitioners’
`Construction ................................................................................................32
`
`ix.
`
`Jewett’s Implementation Does Not Use Virtual Host Bus Adapter .....33
`
`1. Jewett’s Host Drivers ............................................................................33
`
`x. Tackett Does Not Disclose Virtual Host Bus Adapter and Does Not
`Cure Jewett’s Virtual Host Bus Adapter Deficiency .....................................35
`
`xi.
`
`Jewett Does Not Disclose Virtual Host Bus Adapter Under § 103 ......36
`
`xii. Smith Does Not Disclose Virtual Host Bus Adapter and Does Not Cure
`Jewett’s Virtual Host Bus Adapter Deficiency .............................................37
`
`xiii. Petitioners Do Not Rely on Wang for Virtual Host Bus Adapter .....37
`
`xiv. Virtual Host Bus Adapter Is Not Disclosed under Any Ground ..........38
`
`b.
`
`
`Independent Claim 1: Device Driver Creates a Virtual Host Bus Adapter
`38
`
`i. Virtual Host Bus Adapter in Claim 1 of the ’225 Patent .........................38
`
`ii. Description of Device Driver’s Creating the Virtual Host Bus Adapter
`in the ’225 Patent ...........................................................................................38
`
`Jewett Does Not Disclose the Device Driver’s Creating the Virtual
`iii.
`Host Bus Adapter ...........................................................................................40
`
`iv. Device Driver’s Creating the Virtual Host Bus Adapter Is Not
`Disclosed under Any Ground ........................................................................41
`
`c. Independent Claim 1: Indistinguishable from the Way as a Physical Host
`Bus Adapter Device Controls the Device So That the Host Recognizes the
`NAD ..................................................................................................................42
`
`d.
`
`Independent Claim 1: Enumerating .........................................................43
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`i. Enumerating in the ’225 Patent ................................................................43
`
`ii. Petitioners’ Definition of Enumerating Is Inappropriate for and
`Inconsistent with the ’225 Patent...................................................................46
`
`iii.
`
`Jewett Does Not Disclose Enumerating ................................................47
`
`e. Independent Claim 1 Is Not Obvious ..........................................................52
`
`B. Dependent Claims 2-22 Are Not Obvious in View of Jewett Alone and/or in
`Combination with Smith, Wang, or Tackett.........................................................53
`
`C. Dependent Claim 6 Is Not Obvious in View of Jewett Alone and/or in
`Combination with Tackett ....................................................................................53
`
`a. Dependent Claim 6: Registering .................................................................53
`
`i. Registering in the ’225 Patent ..................................................................53
`
`ii. Petitioners’ Theories Regarding Registering ........................................55
`
`iii. Petitioners’ First Registering Theory Using Mounting Is Unavailing .55
`
`1. Petitioners Conflate Registering and Mounting ....................................56
`
`2. The ’225 Patent Describes Mounting and Registering as Separate
`Functions .....................................................................................................56
`
`3. Device Drivers Are Registered, Whereas Disk Drives Are Mounted ..57
`
`4. Device Drivers Register, Whereas Users Mount ..................................58
`
`5. Mounting Does Not Imply Registering.................................................59
`
`6. Petitioners’ Mounting Theory Is Faulty ................................................59
`
`iv. Petitioners’ Second Registering Theory Using Device Files Is
`Unavailing ......................................................................................................60
`
`v.
`
`Jewett Does Not Disclose Registering ..................................................62
`
`vi. Tackett Does Not Disclose Registering ................................................62
`
`vii. Smith Does Not Disclose Registering...................................................62
`
`viii. Wang Does Not Disclose Registering ...............................................63
`
`b. Dependent Claim 6 Is Not Obvious .........................................................63
`
`D. Dependent Claims 7-12 Are Not Obvious in View of Jewett Alone and/or in
`Combination with Smith, Wang, or Tackett.........................................................63
`
`E. Dependent Claim 14 Is Not Obvious in View of Jewett Alone and/or in
`Combination with Smith, Wang, or Tackett.........................................................64
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`VI. CONCLUSION... ee eeceesseeseseseeeseeeseecssesssessseeeseseseasseassseeseesesescsaecsuesaeessesegs 65
`VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................65
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`I, Zaydoon (“Jay”) Jawadi, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1. My name is Zaydoon (“Jay”) Jawadi.
`
`2.
`
`I am an independent expert and consultant. I have been retained as an
`
`expert witness on behalf of SynKloud Technologies, LLC (“SynKloud”) for the
`
`above-captioned Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,870,225
`
`(“’225 Patent”).
`
`3.
`
`As shown in my curriculum vitae (attached as Exhibit 2002), I have a
`
`Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Mosul University, a Master of
`
`Science in Computer Science from Columbia University with a Citation for
`
`Outstanding Achievement – Dean’s Honor Student, and over 40 years of
`
`experience in software and product design and development, engineering,
`
`consulting, and management in the fields of data storage, Internet, software, data
`
`networking, computing systems, and telecommunication.
`
`4.
`
`I have worked with and possess expertise in numerous technologies,
`
`including data storage
`
`technologies and
`
`interfaces, Internet and website
`
`technologies, databases, data networking
`
`technologies and protocols, and
`
`telephony.
`
`5.
`
`From 1978 to 1980, I worked as a telecommunication/electrical
`
`engineer for Emirtel (formerly Cable and Wireless, now Etisalat). During my
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`employment at Emirtel, among other things, I worked on telephony and
`
`telecommunication products and services, and I developed software in assembly
`
`and high-level languages for archiving, storing, and retrieving data to and from
`
`data storage devices, such as disk drives and tape drives.
`
`6.
`
`From 1981 to 1983, I worked as a software engineer for Amdahl
`
`Corporation (now Fujitsu), a California-based major supplier of computers,
`
`systems, and data storage subsystems.
`
`7.
`
`From 1984 to 1994, I worked as a software, data storage, and systems
`
`consultant to various data storage and computer companies in California, the
`
`United States, Asia, and Europe. I provided technical consulting services in data
`
`storage, data storage systems, data storage devices, software design and
`
`development, system software, device driver software, data storage device
`
`firmware, data storage software, data storage chips, data storage tools, data storage
`
`test systems and test software, data storage and I/O protocol development systems,
`
`data storage and I/O protocol analyzers, data storage and I/O monitoring systems,
`
`and data storage manufacturing systems and software.
`
`8.
`
`From 1992 to 1996, I was President and founder of Zadian
`
`Technologies, Inc., a California-based leading supplier of networked data storage
`
`test systems, with over 50,000 units installed worldwide in mission-critical
`
`customer operations with premier high-technology customers, such as Conner
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Peripherals (now Seagate), DEC (now HP), EMC (now Dell EMC), Exabyte,
`
`Fujitsu, HP, IBM, Intel, Iomega, Quantum (now Seagate), Seagate, Sony,
`
`StorageTek, Tandberg, Tandem (now HP), Toshiba, Unisys, and WD. The
`
`company’s products
`
`included
`
`test systems, manufacturing systems, and
`
`development systems for data storage devices (disk drives, tape drives, removable
`
`drives, flash drives, optical drives, CD-ROM drives, Jukeboxes, and RAID) and
`
`data storage interfaces (SCSI, ATA / IDE / ATAPI, Fibre Channel, SSA, and
`
`PCMCIA / PC Card).
`
`9.
`
`In 1996, Zadian Technologies was acquired by UK-based Xyratex
`
`International LTD (NASDAQ: XRTX, which was later acquired by Seagate,
`
`NASDAQ: STX, in 2014). Following Zadian’s acquisition by Xyratex, I became
`
`an employee of Xyratex until 1998. At Xyratex, I was a general manager of a data
`
`storage interface business unit and, subsequently, a general manager of a data
`
`networking analysis tools business unit, which designed and built Gigabit Ethernet
`
`network protocol analysis and monitoring products, which were sold, under OEM
`
`agreement, by the largest supplier of network protocol analysis and monitoring
`
`products.
`
`10. From 1999 to 2001, I was CEO, Chairman, and cofounder of Can Do,
`
`Inc., a California-based Internet eCommerce and community company. The
`
`CanDo.com website offered over 10,000 products for sale as well as extensive
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`consumer features, such as news, chat, messages, and product information for
`
`people with disabilities. The company also provided technologies for display
`
`magnification and sound/audio adaptation through the Internet to make websites
`
`more accessible to persons with vision and hearing impairments. The company
`
`was funded by leading venture capital firms.
`
`11. From 2001 to 2007, I was President and cofounder of CoAssure, Inc.,
`
`a California-based provider of Web-based technology services and solutions for
`
`automated telephony speech recognition and touchtone applications, serving
`
`multiple Fortune-500 companies.
`
`12.
`
`In 2009, I cofounded and have since been President of Rate Speeches,
`
`Inc., a California-based Internet company providing online services, resources, and
`
`technologies for creating, rating, evaluating, and enhancing public speaking,
`
`presentation, and communication skills. Rate Speeches also operates the
`
`ratespeeches.com website and the Speech Evaluator online software.
`
`13. Since moving to Silicon Valley in Northern California in 1981, I have
`
`worked on numerous technology products that have generated billions of dollars in
`
`sales.
`
`14.
`
`I hold a California community college lifelong computer science
`
`instructor credential. I have taught various data storage and computer technologies
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`to thousands of professional engineers and academic students in the United States,
`
`Europe, and Asia.
`
`15.
`
`In my work as an expert and consultant, I have examined, analyzed,
`
`and inspected numerous data storage systems, computer systems, software
`
`products, cell phone applications, tens of millions of lines of source code, and the
`
`frontend and backend software of more than 100 websites, including massive,
`
`highly-trafficked consumer and business websites.
`
`16. Through my education, industry and expert experience, and industry
`
`and expert knowledge, I have gained a detailed understanding of the technologies
`
`at issue in this case.
`
`17. My additional industry experience is in my curriculum vitae.
`
`18. My expert litigation support cases, including cases in which I have
`
`testified during the last four years as an expert, can be found in my curriculum
`
`vitae, which is Exhibit 2002.
`
`19. As such, I am qualified to provide opinions regarding the state of the
`
`art at the time the ’225 Patent was filed (which I understand to be no later than
`
`February 5, 2010, but claiming a priority date of October 13, 2000) and how a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at that time would have interpreted
`
`and understood the ’225 Patent.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`20.
`
`I am being compensated for my work and any travel expenses in
`
`connection with
`
`this proceeding at my standard consulting rates.
`
` My
`
`compensation is in no way dependent on or contingent on the outcome of my
`
`analysis or opinions rendered in this proceeding and is in no way dependent on or
`
`contingent on the results of these or any other proceedings relating to the above-
`
`captioned patent.
`
`21. Although I am not rendering an opinion about the level of skill of a
`
`POSITA proffered by Petitioners, based on my professional experience, I have an
`
`understanding of the capabilities of a POSITA (as such a POSITA is defined by
`
`Petitioners). Over the course of my career, I have supervised and directed many
`
`such persons. Additionally, I myself, at the time the ’225 Patent was filed and at
`
`its priority date, qualified as at least a POSITA.
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`22.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I reviewed the ’225 Patent, including its
`
`claims in view of its specification, the prosecution history of the ’225 Patent,
`
`various prior art and technical references from the time of the invention, the
`
`IPR2021-00174 Petition (“’174 Petition”) and its exhibits (EX1001 – EX1044),
`
`and the IPR2021-00175 Petition (“’175 Petition”) and its exhibits (EX1001 –
`
`EX1044).
`
`23.
`
`I also reviewed the following references attached as exhibits:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`Exhibit
`2003
`Exhibit
`2004
`
`Description
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition, 2002
`
`TCP/IP Illustrated: The Protocols; W. Richard Stevens; Addison-
`Wesley; 1994
`
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`
`24.
`
`I have worked with counsel in the preparation of this Declaration.
`
`Nevertheless, the opinions, statements, and conclusions offered in this Declaration
`
`are purely my own and were neither suggested nor indicated in any way by counsel
`
`or anyone other than myself. I confirmed with counsel my understanding that an
`
`obviousness determination requires an analysis of the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims, the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention of the challenged patent, and an
`
`evaluation of any relevant secondary considerations.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`25.
`
`I reviewed the comments in the Petition and Petitioners’ expert’s
`
`declaration (EX1003) pertaining to construction of the claims of the ’225 Patent in
`
`both the ’174 Petition and the ’175 Petition. My understanding is simply that the
`
`claims should be construed in accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning in
`
`the context of the specification of the ‘225 patent and its file history.
`
`26. Petitioners’ expert’s constructions of at least the term “virtual host bus
`
`adapter” and the term “a device driver, running at the host, for creating a virtual
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`host bus adapter in software controlling the NAD through the network” are not
`
`consistent with the understanding that a POSITA would have had of the claims of
`
`the ‘225 Patent. Nonetheless, none of the claims of the ’225 Patent would have
`
`been obvious even under Petitioners’ constructions.
`
`V. OPINIONS
`
`27. The ’225 Patent discloses one independent claim (Claim 1) and 21
`
`dependent claims (Claims 2-22), which depend directly or indirectly from Claim 1.
`
`28.
`
`In the ’174 Petition, Petitioners present five grounds under which
`
`Claims 1 and 5-12 of the ’225 Patent are purportedly invalid. In the first ground,
`
`Petitioners contend that Claims 1 and 5-12 are purportedly obvious under § 102
`
`based on Jewett (EX1005). In the second ground, Petitioners contend that Claims
`
`1 and 5-12 are purportedly obvious under § 103 based on Jewett (EX1005). In the
`
`third ground, Petitioners contend that Claims 1 and 5-12 are purportedly obvious
`
`under § 103 based on Jewett (EX1005) and Smith (EX1006). In the fourth ground,
`
`Petitioners contend that Claims 1 and 8 are purportedly obvious under § 103 based
`
`on Jewett (EX1005) and Wang (EX1007). In the fifth ground, Petitioners contend
`
`that Claims 6-12 are purportedly obvious under § 103 based on Jewett (EX1005)
`
`and Tackett (EX1012). ’174 Petition, 8-9.
`
`29.
`
`In the ’175 Petition, Petitioners present four grounds under which
`
`Claims 1-4 and 13-22 of the ’225 Patent are purportedly invalid. In the first
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`ground, Petitioners contend that Claims 1-4 and 13-18 are purportedly obvious
`
`under § 102 based on Jewett (EX1005). In the second ground, Petitioners contend
`
`that Claims 1-4 and 13-22 are purportedly obvious under § 103 based on Jewett
`
`(EX1005). In the third ground, Petitioners contend that Claims 1-4 and 13-22 are
`
`purportedly obvious under § 103 based on Jewett (EX1005) and Smith (EX1006).
`
`In the fourth ground, Petitioners contend that Claims 1 and 18-22 are purportedly
`
`obvious under § 103 based on Jewett (EX1005) and Wang (EX1007). ’175
`
`Petition, 3-4.
`
`30.
`
`In my opinion, as described below, Petitioners have not established a
`
`reasonable basis to conclude that the claims of the ’225 Patent are obvious.
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 1 Is Not Obvious in View of Jewett Alone
`and/or in Combination with Smith or Wang
`
`31.
`
`Independent Claim 1 is reproduced below:
`
`“1. A network-attached device (NAD) access system wherein a host,
`having an internal host system bus and running an operating system,
`controls an external device through a carrying general-purpose
`network traffic using a certain network protocol, the system
`comprising:
`
` a
`
` network interface card (NIC) installed at the host for providing a
`general purpose network connection between the host and the network
`and via the network to other devices coupled to the network;
`
` a
`
` network-attached device (NAD) having a data storage to store data,
`the NAD coupled to the network for receiving device level access
`commands from the host in data link frames according to the certain
`network protocol through the network; and
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`a device driver, running at the host, for creating a virtual host bus
`adapter in software controlling the NAD through the network via the
`NIC, the device driver enumerating NAD that are available over the
`network, not directly attached to the host internal system bus, to make
`the host recognize the NAD as a host local device;
`
`the virtual host bus adapter controlling 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.” ’225 Patent,
`Claim 1
`
`32. Petitioners contend that independent Claim 1 is obvious over Jewett
`
`(EX1005), is obvious over Jewett (EX1005) in view of Smith (EX1006), and is
`
`obvious over Jewett (EX1005) in view of Wang (EX1007). ’174 Petition, 8-9;
`
`’175 Petition, 3-4. I disagree for the reasons presented below.
`
`a. Independent Claim 1: Virtual Host Bus Adapter
`
`i. Virtual Host Bus Adapter in Claim 1 of the ’225 Patent
`
`33.
`
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’225 Patent recites a virtual host bus
`
`adapter and two related terms, an internal host system bus and a physical host bus
`
`adapter.
`
`“1. A network-attached device (NAD) access system wherein a host,
`having an internal host system bus and running an operating system,
`controls an external device through a carrying general-purpose
`network traffic using a certain network protocol, the system
`comprising:
`…
`a device driver, running at the host, for creating a virtual host bus
`adapter in software controlling the NAD through the network via the
`NIC, the device driver enumerating NAD that are available over the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`network, not directly attached to the host internal system bus, to
`make the host recognize the NAD as a host local device;
`the virtual host bus adapter controlling 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.” ’225
`Patent, Claim 1, emphasis added
`
`
`ii. Goals of the Virtual Host Bus Adapter in the ’225 Patent
`
`34. The specification of the ’225 Patent describes at least three goals of
`
`the virtual host bus adapter: (1) the host recognizes the network-attached device
`
`(NAD) as if the NAD device is a local device to the host although no physical host
`
`bus adapter is connected to the host bus; (2) each NAD device can be dynamically
`
`connected or removed; and (3) there is no need to use network addresses, such as
`
`IP addresses, for the host to communicate with the NAD device.
`
`“the device driver creates a virtual host bus adapter so that the host
`recognizes the NAD device as if it is a local device to the host.”
`’225 Patent, Abstract, emphasis added
`
`“Each disk appears to the host as if it is a local disk to [sic.]
`connected 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.” ’225 Patent, 3:66-4:5, emphasis added
`
`“In other words, 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 actually
`there is no physical host adapter connected to the bus. Since an
`NAD device is accessed as if it is a local device connected to the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`internal bus of a host, there is no need to use network addresses
`such as IP addresses for the host to communicate with the NAD
`device. Instead, data link frames containing storage commands are
`exchanged between the host and the NAD device.” ’225 Patent,
`11:16-26, emphasis added
`
`“Another object is to provide a disk system that can be recognized
`and used as a local disk to a host without requiring additional
`facility such as an additional file server, a special switch, or even an
`IP address, if appropriate.” ’225 Patent, 2:9-12, emphasis added
`
`“The present invention uses a data link layer protocol to contain
`storage commands into data link frames. Because the NAD device is
`not acting as an independent devices [sic.] to the host, there is no
`need to use a network address such as IP address.” ’225 Patent,
`4:16-20, emphasis added
`
`“a device driver, running at the host, for creating a virtual host bus
`adapter in software controlling the NAD through the network via the
`NIC, the device driver enumerating NAD that are available over the
`network, not directly attached to the host internal system bus, to make
`the host recognize the NAD as a host local device; …” ’225 Patent,
`Claim 1, emphasis added
`
`
`iii. Description of the Virtual Host Bus Adapter in the ’225
`Patent
`
`35. The specification of the ’225 Patent describes the virtual host bus
`
`adapter and describes two related terms: the internal host system bus and the
`
`(physical) host bus adapter. The descriptions are summarized below.
`
`1. Internal Host System Bus
`
`36. Generally, the term bus refers to hardware lines used for data transfer
`
`among components of a computer system.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`“bus n. 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—including
`the processor, disk-drive controller, memory, and input/output ports—
`and enables them to transfer information. The bus consists of
`specialized groups of lines that carry different types of information.
`One group of lines carries data; another carries memory addresses
`(locations) where data items are to be found; yet another carries
`control signals. Buses are characterized by the number of bits they can
`transfer at a single time, equivalent to the number of wires within the
`bus. A computer with a 32-bit address bus and a 16-bit data bus, for
`example, can transfer 16 bits of data at a time from any of 232
`memory locations. Most PCs contain one or more expansion slots into
`which additional boards can be plugged to connect them to the bus.”
`Exhibit 2003, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition, 2002, p.
`18; EX1013, p. 68
`
`37. The ’225 Patent discloses an internal host system bus (AKA internal
`
`host system bus, internal system bus, system bus, system bus of the host, internal
`
`bus, or bus).
`
`38. Claim 1 of the ’225 Patent recites an internal host system bus.
`
`“1. A network-attached device (NAD) access system wherein a host,
`having an internal host system bus and running an operating system,
`… not directly attached to the host internal system bus, …
`recognizes the NAD as if it is a local device connected directly to the
`system bus of the host.” ’225 Patent, Claim 1, emphasis added
`
`39. The specification of the ’225 Patent describes the internal host system
`
`bus, describes the internal host system bus interface, describes that the internal host
`
`system bus is hardware for interconnecting the system with devices, describes that
`
`local disk drives are connected to the internal host system bus through host bus
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`adapters, and describes that the network interface card (NIC) is connected to the
`
`internal host system bus.
`
`“FIG. 1 shows an environment where the present invention is used. A
`host 100 has a file system 101, which may contain a local disk device
`driver 102 that controls a local disk 104 connected to an internal
`system bus 103. A local device is defined as a device inside a
`standard-alone system as opposed to a network device connected to a
`network. Local devices are directly connected to a system bus often
`through an adapter called a host bus adapter allowing the host to
`communicate with the devices without going through any network,
`whereas network devices are not directly connected to a system bus,
`rather connected through an interface called a network interface card
`(NIC) installed on system bus.” ’225 Patent, 3:30-41, emphasis
`added
`
`“Each disk appears to the host as if it is a local disk to [sic.] connected
`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.” ’225 Patent, 3:66-
`4:5, emphasis added
`
`“FIG. 9 shows the constitution of a conventional local disk system and
`that of the NAD system operating under UNIX. Under a file system
`260, a conventional local disk 264 attached to a local bus 263 is
`accessed by a conventional local disk device driver 261 through a bus
`interface 262. Under the same file system 260, an NAD device 272
`with a disk 273, attached to a network 271, is accessed by an NAD
`device driver 265 through a network interface including a network
`protocol stack 266, a network adapter device driver 267, a bus
`interface 268, and a network adapter 270.” ’225 Patent, 6:61-7:3,
`emphasis added
`
`“In a conventional local disk, disk I/O is performed by reading/writing
`to I/O ports of the disk controller attached to the internal system
`bus.” ’225 Patent, 7:60-62, emphasis added
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`“In other words, 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 actually there is
`no physical host adapter connected to the bus. Since an NAD device
`is accessed as if it is a local device connected to the internal bus of a
`host, there is no need to use network addresses such as IP addresses
`for the host to communicate with the NAD device. Instead, data link
`frames containing storage commands are exchanged between the host
`and the NAD device.” ’225 Patent, 11:16-26, emphasis added
`
`“In the Windows 2000 operating system, the generic term, `bus`,
`refers to a piece of hardware to which devices connect electronically.”
`’225 Patent, 11:34-36, emphasis added
`
`“hardware bus such as PCI” ’225 Patent, 12:31-32, emphasis added
`
`“conventional hardware bus such as PCI” ’225 Patent, 19:13-14,
`emphasis added
`
`
`2. Physical Host Bus Adapter
`
`40. Generally, the term adapter refers to a printed circuit board
`
`(hardware) that enables a computer to communicate with a peripheral device, such
`
`as a disk drive.
`
`“adapter or adaptor n. A printed circuit board that enables a personal
`computer to use a peripheral device, such as a CD-ROM drive,
`modem, or joystick, for which it does not already have the necessary
`connections, ports, or circuit boards. Commonly, a single adapter card
`can have more than one adapter on it. Also called: interface card. See
`also controller, expansion board, network adapter, port1, video
`adapter.” Exhibit 2003, Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Edition,