Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 9
` Date: May 6, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. (collectively “Petitioner”) filed a
`Petition for inter partes review of claims 1–4 and 13–22 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,870,225 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’225 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Synkloud
`Technologies, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by
`statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any
`response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the
`Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we decline to institute
`review of the challenged claims of the ’225 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties identify district court proceedings involving, or relating to,
`the ’225 patent. Pet. 2; Paper 7 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices).
`Patent Owner also indicates that the ’225 patent is the subject of
`IPR2021-00174. Paper 7.
`
`B. The ’225 Patent
`The Specification of the ’225 patent describes “a disk system or
`interface that can be directly attached to a network.” Ex. 1001, 1:17–18.
`The ’225 patent aims to address the shortcomings of other network-based
`storage systems by allowing a disk system to be “accessed like a local disk
`without the need of adding an additional file server or special equipment.”
`Id. at 1:30–2:2.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates an operating environment of the network-attached
`disk (NAD) system described in the ’225 patent, and is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows “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.” Id. at 3:31–33. Local devices are connected to
`system bus 103 through a host bus adapter that allows “the host to
`communicate with the devices without going through any network.” Id. at
`3:35–38. Network devices, on the other hand, are “connected through an
`interface called a network interface card (NIC) installed on [the] system
`bus.” Id. at 3:39–41. The ’225 patent describes that host 101 contains NAD
`device driver 105 for controlling NAD device 108, which is connected via
`general-purpose network 7. Id. at 3:30–51. The ’225 patent additionally
`describes that multiple NAD devices may be accessible to multiple hosts
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`
`over the same network (see id. 3:59–65, Fig. 2), and that each NAD device
`may have multiple disks that are independently accessible to multiple hosts
`(see id. 4:33–44, Fig. 4).
`The ’225 patent describes that NAD devices are identified during an
`initial hardware scan and “their corresponding drivers acting as a virtual host
`bus adapter must be generated.” Id. at 7:41–44. According to the ’225
`patent, each NAD disk “appears to the host as if it is a local disk []
`connected to the system bus of the host so that each disk can be dynamically
`installed or removed.” Id. at 3:66–4:1. The ’255 patent accomplishes this
`“by creating a virtual host bus adapter in purely software means that
`recognizes a[] NAD device as if it is connected to the system bus although
`there is no physical host bus adapter connected [to] the NAD.” Id. at 4:2–5;
`see also id. at code (57) (“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”). Once a NAD device is in use, “there is no need to use network
`addresses such as IP addresses for the host,” rather “data link frames
`containing storage commands are exchanged between the host and the NAD
`device.” Id. at 11:22–26.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–4 and 13–22 of the ’225 patent.
`Claim 1 is independent, and claims 2–4 and 13–22 depend therefrom. 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:
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`
`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
`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.
`Ex. 1001, 23:2–26.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–4 and 13–22 are unpatentable based on
`the following grounds (Pet. 3–4):
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Jewett2
`Jewett
`Jewett, Smith3
`Jewett, Wang4
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1–4, 13–18
`1–4, 13–22
`1–4, 13–22
`1, 18–22
`
`35 U.S.C §
`1021
`103(a)
`103(a)
`103(a)
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Claim Construction
`In this inter partes review, claims are construed using the same claim
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claims in a civil
`action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). The claim
`construction standard includes construing claims in accordance with the
`ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the ’225
`patent has an effective filing date before the effective date of the applicable
`AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
`103.
`2 U.S. Pat. No. 7,392,291 B2, issued June 24, 2008 (Ex. 1005, “Jewett”).
`Petitioner asserts that Jewett has an effective filing date of August 11, 2000.
`Pet. 12; see Ex. 1005, code (60).
`3 U.S. Pat. No. 5,829,053, issued Oct. 27, 1998 (Ex. 1006, “Smith”).
`4 U.S. Pat. No. 6,834,326 B1, issued Dec. 21, 2004 (Ex. 1007, “Wang”).
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`
`See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`banc).
`
`“a device driver . . . for creating a virtual host bus adapter”
`Claim 1 recites “a device driver, running at the host, for creating a
`virtual host bus adaptor in software.” Petitioner contends that “virtual host
`bus adapter” means “a software adapter that causes the host to recognize a
`NAD device as if it were connected to the host through a physical adapter.”
`Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 81). In support of Petitioner’s proposed
`construction for the term “virtual host bus adapter,” Petitioner makes the
`following argument:
`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. 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.
`
`Id. at 8–9 (footnote omitted). Petitioner argues that the longer phrase of “a
`device driver, running at the host, for creating a virtual host bus adaptor in
`software” means “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.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 96). In
`addition, Petitioner asserts that the claim language itself “requires that it be
`the host’s device driver that creates the virtual host bus adapter.” Id. (citing
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 23:16–18; Ex. 1003 ¶ 98). Although Patent Owner disagrees with
`Petitioner’s proposed construction for “virtual host bus adapter,” Patent
`Owner does not propose a construction for “virtual host bus adapter” or the
`longer claim phrase reproduced above. Prelim. Resp. 10–12.
`The portion of Petitioner’s proposed construction that the device
`driver is “configured to create” is not persuasive and is inconsistent with
`Petitioner’s argument that the claim language “requires that it be the host’s
`device driver that creates the virtual host bus adapter.” Pet. 11 (emphasis
`added). A device that is “configured to create” something is not the same
`thing as a device that creates something. The plain language of the claim
`requires the latter, not the former. In other words, the plain language of
`claim 1 recites a “device driver . . . creating a virtual host bus adapter,”
`which requires that the device driver creates a virtual host bus adapter.
`Indeed, this is how the parties appear to construe the phrase. Id. at 29
`(“Jewett’s host driver creates a ‘software adapter’ to accomplish this
`virtualization purely through software means . . . .”) (emphasis added);
`Prelim. Resp. 19 (“The Specification of the ’225 patent explains how the
`‘device driver’ on the hose [sic] creates a ‘virtual host bus adapter’ in
`software . . . .”) (emphasis added). Further, this understanding that claim 1
`requires that the device driver creates a virtual host bus adapter is consistent
`with the portions of the Specification of the ’225 patent to which Petitioner
`directs us. In particular, as noted by Petitioner, the ’225 patent describes, for
`example, that upon startup, “NAD devices are identified during initial
`hardware scan and their corresponding drivers acting as a virtual host bus
`adapter must be generated.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:40–43).
`For purposes of this Decision, we need not further construe the terms
`of this phrase or any other terms of the claims. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only
`those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent
`necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir.
`2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).
`
`B. Principles of Law
`To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged
`as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference.
`See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed.
`Cir. 2001). Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the
`same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis
`test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d
`1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); accord In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed.
`Cir. 1990).
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`indicia of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`(1966).
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Citing the Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh, Petitioner contends that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “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.”
`Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47). Patent Owner does not propose an alternative
`assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim.
`Resp.; Ex. 2001 ¶ 21 (Declaration of Mr. Zaydoon Jawadi). To the extent
`necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the assessment
`offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’254 patent and the asserted
`prior art.
`
`D. Asserted Anticipation of Claims 1–4 and 13–18 over Jewett
`Petitioner contends claims 1–4 and 13–18 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Jewett. Pet. 3, 19–44 (“Ground 1”). In
`support of its showing, Petitioner relies upon the declaration of Dr. Henry
`Houh. Id. (citing Ex. 1003). In support of its Preliminary Response, Patent
`Owner relies upon the declaration of Mr. Zaydoon Jawadi (Ex. 2001).
`
`1. Jewett
`Jewett describes a network-based storage system that includes one or
`more block-level storage servers that connect to, and provide disk storage
`for, one or more host computers. Ex. 1009, code (57). Figure 1 illustrates
`the primary hardware components of one embodiment of Jewett’s system,
`and is reproduced below.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows host computer 102 and block-level IP storage server
`104 connected through network 100 via respective network interface cards
`106. Id. at 3:63–67. Network 100 may be, for example, an Ethernet-based
`Storage Area Network (SAN). Id. at 4:25–28. Block server 104 includes an
`array of disk drives 112 controlled by disk array controller 110. Id. at 4:7–9.
`The total disk space of block server 104 “may be segmented or subdivided
`into multiple, variable-size data storage units or ‘partitions,’ each of which
`may have access privileges independently of other partitions.” Id. at 9:10–
`13.
`
`Host 102 includes an operating system, host-side driver 204, and
`reader/writer (RW) component 200a. Id. at 4:38–43; Fig. 2. Block server
`104 includes storage-side device driver 206 and RW component 200b. Id. at
`4:43–47; Fig. 2. The respective RW components “are preferably executed as
`separate processes that are established in pairs . . . with each pair dedicated
`to a respective TCP/IP socket over a network 100.” Id. at 4:50–54. Jewett
`describes that “[a]n important function of the host driver 204 is that of
`virtualizing the storage provided by the block servers [1]04 so that all
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`
`higher-level software processes on the host . . . view the block server storage
`as one or more local, physical disk drives.” Id. at 5:24–25.
`
`2. Discussion
`Claim 1, the sole independent claim, recites “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.” Petitioner identifies Jewett’s host-
`side device driver 204 (along with the host reader/writer (RW) components
`as part of the host driver) as the claimed “device driver, running at the host”
`and “controlling the NAD through the network.” Pet. 27–29 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 3:64–4:2, 4:21–34, 4:38–49, 4:54–59, 5:7–11, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 115–131, 146–150). Petitioner contends that the host RW that is part of
`the host driver satisfies the claim limitation “controlling the NAD through
`the network.” Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:7–10; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–127,
`149).
`Petitioner further contends that “[a] Skilled Artisan would understand
`Jewett’s host driver is configured to create a software adapter that causes the
`host to recognize a NAD device as though it were connected through a
`physical adapter.” Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 16). Petitioner argues that Jewett’s
`host driver is part of the host’s software that enables the host to
`“virtualize[e] the storage provided by the block servers 204 so that all
`higher-level software processes on the host . . . view the block server storage
`as one or more, local physical disk drives.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 5:24–29).
`Importantly, Petitioner contends that the host driver “creates a
`‘software adapter’ to accomplish this virtualization purely through software
`means, . . . enabling Jewett’s host to recognize peripheral devices (e.g.,
`block level storages).” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 4:37–41; Ex. 1013, 16;
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:24–29). Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in
`the art would understand “this ‘virtual host bus adapter [to be] controlling
`the NAD through the network via the NIC’ because the host’s device driver
`issues I/O commands to network-attached block servers where the I/O
`commands are read from the network and executed at the server.” Id. at 29–
`30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–127, 149). Lastly, Petitioner argues that Jewett
`“discloses that the host driver can create a ‘virtual host bus adapter [to]
`control[] the NAD.” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 148–152, 174).
`We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not show sufficiently
`that Jewett discloses a device driver “creating a virtual host bus adapter.”
`Prelim. Resp. 19–21. First, Petitioner contends that Jewett’s host driver
`“creates a software adapter’ to accomplish this virtualization purely through
`software means, . . . enabling Jewett’s host to recognize peripheral devices
`(e.g., block level storages).” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:37–41; Ex. 1013,
`16; Ex. 1001, 5:24–29). Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently how Jewett’s
`host driver accomplishing virtualization through software, enabling the host
`to recognize peripheral devices meets “a device driver . . . creating a virtual
`host bus adapter.” The portion of Jewett that Petitioner relies upon describes
`“the software components of the architecture” shown in Figure 2, such as a
`host side 102 that includes an operating system, and a host-side device driver
`204 that communicates with the operating system. Ex. 1005, 4:37–41.
`There is no description there that the host-side device driver 204 creates
`anything. Petitioner further relies on a dictionary definition of “adapter,”
`which is defined as “[a] printed circuit board that enables a personal
`computer to use a peripheral device.” Ex. 1013, 16. Petitioner fails to
`explain how the definition of an “adapter” supports its assertions that Jewett
`describes “a device driver . . . creating a virtual host bus adapter.”
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`
`Moreover, the portion of Jewett that Petitioner relies upon (Pet. 29
`(citing Ex. 1005, 5:24–29))5, reproduced below, does not describe that the
`host driver 204 creates a virtual host bus adapter.
`An important function of the host driver 204 is that of
`virtualizing the storage provided by the block servers 204, so that
`all higher-level software processes on the host, such as the
`operating system and other user-level processes, view the block
`server storage as one or more local, physical disk drives.
`Ex. 1005, 5:24–29. Petitioner fails to explain in any way what it is about the
`above passage that describes that host driver 204 creates a virtual host bus
`adapter. Again, nothing is described as being created. Lastly, Petitioner’s
`argument that Jewett “discloses that the host driver can create a ‘virtual host
`bus adapter [to] control[] the NAD,” merely references Dr. Houh’s earlier
`testimony as to how Jewett describes a host that creates a software adapter.
`Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 148–152, 174). Dr. Houh’s testimony mirrors the
`Petition, addressed above. For example, the entirety of paragraph 150 of Dr.
`Houh’s testimony, where he explains that “Jewett’s host driver creates a
`‘software adapter’ to accomplish this virtualization purely through software
`means . . . enabling Jewett’s host to recognize peripheral devices,” is nearly
`identical to the second paragraph that spans pages 29 to 30 of the Petition.
`
`
`5 Although Petitioner cites to Exhibit 1001, 5:24–29, we understand that
`Petitioner intended to cite to Exhibit 1005, 5:24–29. Exhibit 1001 at 5:24–
`29 of the involved patent shows a “Table 2,” which is a table “list[ing] the
`general functions used by the local driver and the NDA driver.” Ex. 1001,
`5:19–29. No explanation is made with respect to how Table 2 supports
`Petitioner’s contention that Jewett describes “a device driver . . . creating a
`virtual host bus adapter.” Thus, we assume Petitioner intended to cite
`Exhibit 1005, 5:24–29.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 1506; Pet. 29–30. We have reviewed Dr. Houh’s testimony that
`we are directed to and find nothing more than what is contained in the
`Petition for how Jewett meets the claim 1 “device driver . . . creating a
`virtual host bus adapter” limitation.
`Each of claims 2–4 and 13–18 depends either directly or indirectly
`from independent claim 1. For claims 2–4 and 13–18, Petitioner does not
`present arguments or evidence that remedy the deficiencies in Petitioner’s
`contentions identified above with regard to claim 1. Pet. 34–44. For all of
`the above reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge that
`claims 1–4 and 13–18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated
`by Jewett.7
`
`E. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–4 and 13–22 over Jewett
`Petitioner contends claims 1–4 and 13–22 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jewett. Pet. 44–50.
`
`Claim 1 recites “an internal host system bus.” For this
`challenge (“Ground 2”), Petitioner argues that to the extent Jewett does not
`describe an “internal host system bus,” it would have been obvious to
`include such a device in Jewett’s host. Id. at 3, 44. Petitioner further argues
`that to the extent that Jewett does not disclose “the device driver
`enumerating NAD that are available over the network, not directly attached
`
`
`6 Dr. Houh cites to Exhibit 1001, 5:24–29, which we understand to be the
`same typographical error as the one in the Petition, explained above. Ex.
`1003 ¶ 150. We understand he intended to cite Exhibit 1005, 5:24–29.
`7 Because we find Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this challenge for the reasons discussed above, we do not reach
`Patent Owner’s remaining arguments.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`
`to the host internal system bus, to make the host recognize the NAD as a
`host local device,” it would have been obvious to include the functionality to
`enumerate virtual NAD in Jewett’s block storage system. Id. at 44–45.
`Petitioner also makes arguments addressing certain dependent claims. Id. at
`45–50. Petitioner does not present arguments or evidence that remedy the
`deficiencies of Petitioner’s contentions identified above regarding claim 1.
`Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded
`that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in its challenge that claims 1–4 and 13–22 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jewett.
`
`F. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–4 and 13–22 over Jewett and Smith
`Petitioner contends claims 1–4 and 13–22 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jewett and Smith. Pet. 50–55.
`Claim 1 recites “an internal host system bus.” For this challenge
`(“Ground 3”), Petitioner argues that to the extent Jewett does not describe or
`render obvious an “internal host system bus,” it would have been obvious to
`include the internal host system bus of Smith in Jewett’s system. Id. at 4,
`51–52. Petitioner also makes arguments addressing certain dependent
`claims. Id. at 53–55. Petitioner does not present arguments or evidence that
`remedy the deficiencies of Petitioner’s contentions identified above
`regarding claim 1. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we
`are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in its challenge that claims 1–4 and 13–22 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jewett and Smith.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`
`G. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1 and 18–22 over Jewett and Wang
`Petitioner contends claims 1 and 18–22 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jewett and Wang. Pet. 55–70.
`Claim 1 recites “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.” For this challenge
`(“Ground 4”), Petitioner argues that to the extent Jewett does not describe
`this claim limitation, it would have been obvious to implement the
`networked software RAID of Wang into Jewett’s host driver in a block
`storage system. Id. at 4, 55–56. Petitioner also makes arguments addressing
`certain dependent claims. Id. at 60–70. Petitioner does not present
`arguments or evidence that remedy the deficiencies of Petitioner’s
`contentions identified above regarding claim 1. Accordingly, for the same
`reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established
`a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge that
`claims 1 and 18–22 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`over Jewett and Wang.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown
`a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that any of the
`challenged claims of the ’225 patent are unpatentable.8
`
`
`8 Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we need not consider
`Petitioner’s explanation regarding the necessity for multiple petitions.
`Paper 4.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and
`no trial is instituted.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00175
`Patent 7,870,225 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph Micallef
`Scott Border
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`sborder@sidley.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gregory Gonsalves
`Yeasun Yoon
`Capitol IP Law Group, PLLC
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`yoon@capitoliplaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`