UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________
`
`NETAPP, INC., LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., and EMC CORP.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.: IPR2017-00467
`U.S. Patent No. 6,968,459
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF IAN JESTICE
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 1 of 92
`
`
`
`______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________
`
`NETAPP, INC., LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., and EMC CORP.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.: IPR2017-00467
`U.S. Patent No. 6,968,459
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF IAN JESTICE
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 1 of 92
`
`
`
`I, Ian Jestice, do hereby declare and say:
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of twenty-one (21) and competent to make this
`
`declaration. I am also qualified to give testimony under oath. The facts and
`
`opinions listed below are within my personal knowledge.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in this matter at my standard consulting
`
`rate of $325/hr. My compensation in no way depends on the outcome of this
`
`proceeding or the content of my opinions. I am not employed by, nor receiving
`
`grant support from, the Petitioner in this matter. I am receiving compensation from
`
`Petitioner solely for my involvement in this matter and based only on my standard
`
`hourly consulting fees.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to review certain documents, including U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,968,459 (which I refer to as the ’459 Patent) (Ex. 1001), and to provide my
`
`opinions on what those documents disclose. The documents I was asked to review
`
`include those addressed in more detail in the rest of this declaration. I provide my
`
`conclusions regarding the disclosures of these documents below. I was also asked
`
`to review and provide opinions regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,516,442 and
`
`6,633,945, which I understand are also involved in litigation against Petitioner
`
`along with the ’459 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`In addition to the ’459 Patent, I have reviewed and am familiar with the
`
`2
`
`following documents:
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 2 of 92
`
`
`
`a. U.S. Patent No. 5,677,952 to Blakley, III et al. (“Blakley”) (Ex.
`
`1005);
`
`b. U.S. Patent No. 7,124,301 to Uchida (“Uchida”) (Ex. 1006); and
`
`c. Ian D. Bramhill & Mathew Sims, Copyright in a Digital Age, BT
`
`Technol J Vol 15 No 2 (April 1997) (“Bramhill”) (Ex. 1007).
`
`5.
`
`I was also asked to provide my opinions on the technical feasibility of
`
`combining certain aspects of certain documents, and whether those combinations
`
`would have been made from a technical perspective. I have offered my opinions
`
`on the feasibility of such combinations in this declaration.
`
`6.
`
`I am not offering any conclusions as to the ultimate determinations I
`
`understand the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will make in this proceeding.
`
`Specifically, I am not offering opinions on ultimate issues of validity or claim
`
`construction. I am simply providing my opinion on technical issues, including on
`
`the technical aspects of the documents as compared to the claims of the ’459 Patent
`
`as a factual matter and on the combinability of the concepts disclosed in those
`
`documents from a technical perspective.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`7.
`
`I hold the equivalent of an undergraduate degree in Telecommunications and
`
`Computer Science from the City and Guilds Institute of London, which I obtained
`
`3
`
`in 1971.
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 3 of 92
`
`
`
`8.
`
`As described in more detail in my curriculum vitae (Ex. 1003) I have more
`
`than 40 years of industry experience with storage devices, embedded software
`
`systems for industry and consumer products, and other systems including Flash
`
`Memory (Solid State Disks, memory cards, flash drives), Optical Storage (CD,
`
`DVD, WORM, Magneto-Optical), Magnetic Storage (Hard Disk, Floppy Disk,
`
`Tape), RAID/Disk Arrays
`
`and
`
`jukeboxes; USB,
`
`SCSI,
`
`iSCSI,
`
`IDE/ATA/ATAPI/SATA, Fibre Channel, PCMCIA, game programming, home
`
`appliances and telecommunications.
`
`9.
`
`As part of my experience, I have worked as a design and systems engineer at
`
`Amdahl Corporation, IBM and Fujitsu, designing, building, testing and supporting
`
`computing environments with secure storage devices.
`
`10.
`
`I have been familiar with the field of storage devices, specifically secure
`
`storage devices, for at least the past 30 years. I have worked with security in the
`
`context of storage devices while working for IBM, Amdahl and Fujitsu using
`
`IBM’s RACF (Resource Access Control Facility) software. Additionally, while
`
`working at Zadian, I was involved in the testing of secure storage devices. For
`
`these reasons and because of my technical experience and training as outlined in
`
`my curriculum vitae (Ex. 1003), I believe I am capable of offering technical
`
`opinions regarding the ’459 Patent and the other documents I reviewed as part of
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 4 of 92
`
`
`
`my work in this matter. I believe I am capable of opining about the state of the art
`
`in these areas at various points in time from the early 1970s to the present.
`
`OVERVIEW OF SECURE STORAGE DEVICES
`11. Before the introduction of Personal Computers, computer systems were
`
`physically secured in locked computer rooms where access was restricted to a few
`
`trusted employees. External access to the data was restricted by the limitations of
`
`computer network and the cost of the equipment. Data was stored in the secure
`
`computer rooms on physically large and heavy media. Consequently the security of
`
`the data could be achieved using traditional physical security protocols.
`
`12. As inexpensive, small, data storage, computer networks and management
`
`became more prevalent in the mid to late 90s, creating secure computing
`
`environments became a top priority. A specific goal was to prevent unauthorized
`
`use of computer data. Preventing unauthorized use of computer data became an
`
`even greater concern as the use of removable storage devices became more
`
`common.
`
`13. One of the biggest fears while using removable storage devices was the
`
`copying and/or reading of sensitive data by unauthorized users. To prevent
`
`unauthorized use of sensitive computer data, many security measures were created
`
`and implemented to regulate and secure access to data.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 5 of 92
`
`
`
`14. Mechanisms as simple as physical switches on floppy disks have been used
`
`to prevent some copying of data. Similarly, with regard to DVD video, encoding
`
`techniques have been used to ensure that only authorized devices (with the
`
`capability to decode) can be used to playback a disk. Likewise, because of the
`
`encoded nature of the content on these discs, copying to a hard disk drive is not
`
`possible without first breaking the encoding scheme.
`
`15. Other security measures over time have included the use of PINs or
`
`passwords or other similar user-specific identifiers, bad sectors or physical
`
`nonuniformities or other similar device-specific identifiers, and encryption and
`
`other similar data specific measures. To increase the level of security, multiple
`
`different security measures, especially different types of security measures, were
`
`often combined to achieve maximum security.
`
`16.
`
`In the late 1970’s and 1980’s, Computer manufactures realized that
`
`operating system software could play a significant part in the security of the data
`
`and access to the computer systems. IBM introduced RACF (Resource Access
`
`Control Facility) for storage devices in 1977 to the MVS operating system. RACF
`
`provided different levels of access to data based on userid’s, passwords and
`
`security key strings. RACF also supported the encryption on data storage devices.
`
`The ’459 Patent is directed to a particular security regime involving the use of
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 6 of 92
`
`
`
`security information (such as device-specific security information) on media to
`
`ensure that copying is authorized.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,968,459
`
`17. The ’459 Patent relates to a secure storage device and restricting access to
`
`that device. Ex. 1001 at Title, Abstract. It describes “a computer 100 that
`
`automatically operates in a secure data storage mode when the computer 100
`
`senses that storage device 151 is a secure storage device.” Ex. 1001 at 2:30-33.
`
`Fig. 1 of the ’459 Patent illustrates computer 100 and removable storage media 151
`
`(which, in the figure, are a floppy disk and a CD-ROM).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 7 of 92
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 1. In the above figure, I have added annotations to show the
`
`removable storage media in blue and the drive into which the media are inserted in
`
`red. According to the ’459 Patent, “each storage device 151 represents a
`
`removable device having a storage medium for holding digital information such as
`
`a floppy diskette, a magneto-optical storage device, an optical disk, a SuperDiskTM
`
`diskette, a ZipTM disk, a JazzTM disk, a tape cartridge, etc.” Id. at 3:8-33 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`18. The ’459 Patent teaches that once a piece of removable media has been
`
`inserted into an appropriate drive, a so-called storage manager detects whether the
`
`removable storage device 151 has “security information” such as “device-specific”
`
`information and “user-specific” information. Ex. 1001 at 3:57-4:34, 5:7-10. The
`
`’459 Patent provides examples of device-specific security information, including
`
`information that is “a function of the unique format characteristics of the
`
`underlying storage medium” (id. at Abstract, 3:66-4:1), such as “a hash of the
`
`addresses of the bad sectors for storage device” that is “inherently unique to each
`
`storage device ….” Id. at 4:9-17.
`
`19.
`
`In what the ’459 Patent describes as an “exemplary embodiment,” an “LS-
`
`120 SuperDiskTM 300 from ImationTM Corp.” as the storage device. Id. at 7:51-52.
`
`The ’459 Patent explains that “unique format information … for example the zone
`
`numbers and corresponding LBA’s for SuperDisk 300, or a combination thereof,
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 8 of 92
`
`
`
`can be hashed to form the device-specific security information.” Id. at 8:15-60.
`
`Specifically, “SuperDisk 300 uses a slip-sector format that maps data into good
`
`data sectors. In the slip-sector format, each data sector is assigned a logical block
`
`address (LBA),” which “identifies a readable sector of data and its logical position
`
`within SuperDisk 300.” Id. at 8:28-37. The ’459 Patent further describes how “the
`
`slip-sector format defines 110 zones,” each having a defined number of tracks,
`
`where “[e]ach zone has an LBA that represents the starting address of the
`
`corresponding zone.” Id. at 8:32-37. Thus, the data sectors are indexed by
`
`assigning LBAs corresponding to their logical positions within the storage device.
`
`“[A] device-specific key can be generated using the unique format information
`
`described above.” Id. at 8:50-52.
`
`20. The ’459 Patent further states that “device-specific security information can
`
`be combined with other security information in order to increase the level of
`
`security of computer 100.” Id. at 4:20-22. For example, device-specific security
`
`information can be combined with “user-specific security information” such as a
`
`password or biometric information.” Id. at 4:4-5, 5:39-46, 11:1-7.
`
`21.
`
`In the ’459 Patent, if the required “security information” such as “user-
`
`specific” information and/or “device-specific” information is retrieved, then “full
`
`access” is provided to the storage device, where data can be read by and written to
`
`the storage device 151. Id. at 4:29-34, 6:28-33. A cryptographic key for
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 9 of 92
`
`
`
`encrypting and decrypting the data to the storage device 151 is generated from the
`
`“security information.” Specifically, data written to the storage device 151 is
`
`encrypted, and data read from the storage device 151 is decrypted using a
`
`cryptographic key generated from the “security information.” Id. at 3:64-4:5, 4:63-
`
`5:6, 5:58-60, 6:4-15.
`
`22. However, if the required “security information” is not retrieved, then the
`
`’459 Patent discusses providing “restricted access” to the storage device 151. Id. at
`
`4:29-34, 5:15-19, 5:39-46.
`
`23. Figure 2 below graphically illustrates one example of the security protocol
`
`described in the ’459 Patent.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 10 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 2.
`
`24.
`
`I have been asked to focus my analysis and opinions on claims 15, 18, 24,
`
`and 25 of the ’459 Patent. Those claims are reproduced below for reference:
`
`Claim 15:
`
`A method for accessing a storage device comprising:
`
`detecting a storage device within the storage drive;
`
`sensing whether a storage device has a device-specific security
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 11 of 92
`
`
`
`information stored thereon;
`
`providing full-access to the storage device when the storage device has
`
`the device-specific security information by:
`
`encrypting digital data using the security information during a write
`
`access to write the digital data to the storage device; and
`
`decrypting digital data using the security information during a read
`
`access to read the digital data from the storage device; and
`
`providing restricted-access to the storage device when the storage
`
`device does not store the device-specific security information by
`
`preventing the digital data from being written to the storage device
`
`during the write access.
`
`Claim 18:
`
`A method for accessing a storage device comprising:
`
`detecting a storage device within the storage drive;
`
`sensing whether the storage device has security information generated from
`
`a combination of device-specific information associated with the storage
`
`device and user-specific information associated with a user;
`
`configuring the storage drive to prevent write access to the storage device
`
`when the security information is not sensed; and
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 12 of 92
`
`
`
`configuring the storage drive to permit write access by encrypting digital
`
`data using the security information and writing the encrypted digital data to
`
`the storage device when the security information is sensed.
`
`Claim 24:
`
`The method of claim 18, wherein encrypting digital data using the security
`
`information includes generating the cryptographic key as a function of the
`
`user-specific information.
`
`Claim 25:
`
`The method of claim 18, wherein the user-specific information is a
`
`password.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`25.
`
`I was asked to offer my opinion about the qualifications of a “person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art” or a “POSA,” in the field of the ’459 Patent as of
`
`December 15, 1999. I was asked to offer opinions about what certain documents
`
`taught to such a POSA as of December 15, 1999. At a high level, the methods and
`
`systems of using secure storage devices disclosed in the ’459 Patent were not new
`
`as of December 15, 1999. My review of the documents referenced herein
`
`comports with my experience that those of skill in the art prior to December 1999
`
`knew how to protect storage devices (both removable and non-removable) using
`
`device-specific security information and user-specific security information to
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 13 of 92
`
`
`
`prevent unauthorized use of data. Further, those of skill in the art prior to
`
`December 1999 knew that this same security information could be used to encrypt
`
`data adding an increased level of security.
`
`26. As discussed in more detail below, my review of prior art documents in this
`
`proceeding demonstrates that the individual components of Claims 15, 18, 24 and
`
`25 of the ’459 Patent were well-known as of December 15, 1999.
`
`27. Specifically, U.S. Patent No. 5,677,952 to Blakley, III et al. (“Blakley”) (Ex.
`
`1005) in view of Ian D. Bramhill & Mathew Sims, Copyright in a Digital Age, BT
`
`Technol. J. Vol 15 No 2 (April 1997) (“Bramhill”) (Ex. 1007) discloses each and
`
`every element of Claims 15, 18, 24, and 25 of the ’459 Patent.
`
`28. Additionally, U.S. Patent No. 7,124,301 to Uchida (“Uchida”) (Ex. 1006) in
`
`view of Bramhill (Ex. 1007) discloses each and every element of Claims 15, 18, 24
`
`and 25.
`
`29.
`
`I was asked to consider the feasibility and combinability of references
`
`through the eyes of a POSA as of December 15, 1999. In considering those
`
`combinations, I was asked not to use “hindsight” reasoning. I have been informed
`
`about certain factors that should be considered in making such combinations,
`
`which I detail below.
`
`30. Under the framework I have been provided, it is my opinion that the
`
`combinations I have been asked to consider in the instant proceeding (i.e., Blakley
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 14 of 92
`
`
`
`in view of Bramhill and Uchida in view of Bramhill) could and would have been
`
`made by a POSA, which I address in more detail below, as of December 15, 1999.
`
`As I describe below, the individual references, several of which are attributable to
`
`large computer companies that specialized in computer storage technology, contain
`
`statements and teachings that motivate those of skill in the art to look to other
`
`references in the combinations I was asked to consider.
`
`31. Thus, in my opinion, a POSA would have been motivated to combine
`
`Blakley with Bramhill; the resulting system discloses each feature of claims 15, 18,
`
`24 and 25 of the ’459 Patent. Likewise, in my opinion, a POSA would have been
`
`motivated to combine Uchida with Bramhill; the resulting system also discloses
`
`each feature of claims 15, 18, 24 and 25 of the ’459 Patent.
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`32.
`
`I was asked to provide my opinion about the experience and background a
`
`POSA of the ’459 Patent would have had as of December 15, 1999. In my
`
`opinion, such a POSA would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`
`computer engineering, or the equivalent, and would have had at least two years of
`
`experience in the design or research of secure computer data storage devices.
`
`33.
`
`I believe I qualified as a person of skill in the art in 1999 based on my
`
`telecommunication and computer science degree along with the experience I
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 15 of 92
`
`
`
`outlined above. Furthermore, I believe that I can opine today about what those of
`
`skill in the art would have known and understood as of December 15, 1999.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`34. As I mentioned above, I am not offering any opinions with regard to the
`
`ultimate legal conclusion the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) will make
`
`in this proceeding. I understand in general that the claim construction standard
`
`applicable here is the “broadest reasonable interpretation,” a standard which
`
`theoretically results in constructions broader than or equal to in scope than the
`
`claim construction standard applicable in district court.
`
`a. Device-Specific Security Information
`
`35. Claim 15 of the ’459 Patent recites “device-specific security information.” I
`
`was asked to provide my opinions herein based on the understanding that “device-
`
`specific security information” means “information that is specific to the storage
`
`device and used to control access to the storage device but excludes manufacturing
`
`information that has been etched onto the storage device (i.e., a randomly
`
`generated number), drive-specific
`
`information, such as drive calibration
`
`parameters, and user-specific information, such as a password selected by a user.”
`
`36.
`
`I was also asked to provide my opinion with a slightly broader
`
`understanding of the meaning of “device-specific security information:” namely,
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 16 of 92
`
`
`
`that it means “information that is specific to the storage device and is used to
`
`control access to the storage device.”
`
`37.
`
`I provide my analysis under each construction in more detail below.
`
`b. “Device-Specific Information” and “User-Specific Information”
`
`38. Claim 18 of the ’459 Patent recites “device-specific information” and “user-
`
`specific information.” I was asked to offer my opinions here with the
`
`understanding that these terms mean “information specific to the device” and
`
`“information specific to the user,” respectively.
`
`c. “Security Information”
`
`39. Claim 18 of the ’459 Patent recites “security information.” I was asked to
`
`provide my opinions herein based on the understanding that the term “security
`
`information” means “information that is used to control access.”
`
`d. “Detecting a Storage Device within a Storage Drive”
`
`40. Claims 15 and 18 of the ’459 Patent each require a “detecting a storage
`
`device within a storage drive.” I have been asked to provide my opinion based on
`
`the construction of this term to be “determining that removable storage media has
`
`been inserted into a media drive.” Indeed, this construction is consistent with my
`
`understanding of the term “detecting a storage device within a storage drive,”
`
`which connotes that some removable medium is being inserted in drive configured
`
`17
`
`to read that medium.
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 17 of 92
`
`
`
`41.
`
`I have also been asked to provide my opinion based on a construction of the
`
`term where the device is not removable, and where establishing initial
`
`communications with a hard disk drive can satisfy this term.
`
`42.
`
`I provide my analysis under each construction in more detail below.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,677,952 (“BLAKLEY”)
`
`43. As part of my work in this proceeding, I was asked to review U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,677,952 to Blakley. Ex. 1005.
`
`44.
`
`Blakely is directed to a “method to protect information on a computer
`
`storage device” in a storage drive, to create a secure computing environment. Ex.
`
`1005 at Title. “It is the principal object of [Blakley] to protect the confidentiality of
`
`information stored on a storage device of a computer” by permitting authorized
`
`users access to the information and preventing unauthorized users access to the
`
`information. Ex. 1005 at 1:43-45. Like the ’459 Patent, Blakley uses “security
`
`information” in the form of a pseudorandom bit string that is both user-specific
`
`(e.g., based in part on a secret key derived from an authorized user’s password) and
`
`device-specific (e.g., based in part on an index that is specific to the storage device)
`
`to control whether read and write access is granted to the storage device. Blakely
`
`further teaches that this user-specific and device-specific security information is
`
`used to encrypt and decrypt information to and from the storage device to protect
`
`access to the information when the information is lacking. Id. at Abstract, 2:16-17.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 18 of 92
`
`
`
`45.
`
`The pseudorandom bit string described in Blakley is generated by “applying
`
`a length-increasing pseudorandom function” to the “secret key” and “index.” Id. at
`
`Abstract, 2:10-13. Like the ’459 Patent, Blakley’s “secret key” is generated from
`
`user-specific information such as a user’s password. Compare Ex. 1001 (’459
`
`Patent) at 4:4-5, 5:39-46, 5:58-60, 5:66-6:3, with Ex. 1005 (Blakley) at 2:6-10,
`
`2:42-44, 5:1-3, 6:14-18, 11:1-7. Further, it is my opinion that Blakley’s “index” is
`
`“device-specific” in that it uniquely identifies “where in the storage device the
`
`particular data is stored.” Ex. 1005 at 3:45-49, claim 15 (“wherein the index is a
`
`file number identifying a file associated with the location in the storage device”),
`
`2:38 (“index (i.e., the disk sector identification)”), 5:17-19 (“In the event that there
`
`is more than one disk whose contents are to be encrypted, indices are selected for
`
`each disk such that no two sectors receive the same index.”). This is similar to the
`
`description of the device-specific information in the ’459 Patent. Ex. 1001 8:28-37
`
`(’459 Patent’s assignment of a logical block address (LBA) and zones to “identif[y]
`
`a readable sector of data and its logical position within” the storage device).
`
`46. Generally, the “length-increasing pseudorandom function” in Blakley refers
`
`to a function in a computer program that takes a shorter data field and encrypts it,
`
`using inputs such as the secret key and index, into a longer data field using an
`
`algorithm that produces a result that is practically indistinguishable from that of a
`
`truly random function. See Ex. 1005 at 8:3-8 (“the pseudorandom function is a
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 19 of 92
`
`
`
`cryptographic ‘object’ that preferably maps a relatively short (e.g., 32 bits) index ‘i’
`
`and a secret key a to an pseudorandom bit sequence fa(i). For f to be called a
`
`pseudorandom function, it must be impossible for the attacker, who does not know
`
`‘a’ to distinguish fa(i) from a random function of i.”).
`
`47.
`
`Therefore, in my opinion, just as the ’459 Patent discloses that the device-
`
`specific security information can be generated using unique location based format
`
`information including the LBAs (Ex. 1001 at 8:28-52), Blakley discloses generating
`
`the pseudorandom bit string based at least in part on the device-specific information
`
`in the form of the disk sector index (Ex. 1005 at 3:45-56).
`
`48.
`
`If the required “security information,” including the correct user password
`
`and corresponding “pseudorandom bit string,” is received by the storage drive,
`
`Blakley teaches that the user is provided full access to the storage device and data
`
`can be read and written to the storage device. Ex. 1005 at 6:12-47. Like the ’459
`
`Patent, this security information in Blakley is used to generate a cryptographic key
`
`to encrypt and decrypt data from the disk sector. Id. at 2:16-17. Specifically, the
`
`“ciphertext is decrypted by the pseudorandom bit string when the disk is read.
`
`Information to be stored in a sector is encrypted by the pseudorandom string before
`
`it is written to the disk.” Id. at 2:18-21. Blakley confirms that the “pseudorandom
`
`bit string [] is used to secure the information intended for or retrieved from” a disk
`
`20
`
`sector. Id. at 5:34-36.
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 20 of 92
`
`
`
`49. Moreover, like the ’459 Patent, if the required “security information” in
`
`Blakley is not received by the storage drive, then data cannot be read from or
`
`written to the storage device. Id. at 6:12-24.
`
`50. Generally, after reviewing the ’459 Patent and Blakley, it is my opinion that
`
`the security architecture of Blakley functions the same way as the ’459 Patent:
`
`Blakley discloses the use of security information in the form of a pseudorandom bit
`
`string that is both user-specific (e.g., based in part on a secret key derived from an
`
`authorized user’s password) and device-specific (e.g., based in part on an index that
`
`is specific to a disk) to determine whether write access should be granted to the
`
`storage device. This security information described in Blakley is used to encrypt
`
`and decrypt information to and from the storage device.
`
`51. While Blakley discusses an embodiment restricting access to information on
`
`a computer’s hard disk 36, Blakley also clearly explains that its system can be
`
`applied to removable storage devices, such as floppy disks 37, as depicted in Figure
`
`2 below (as compared side-by-side with Figure 1 of the ’459 Patent with similar
`
`color annotations). Ex. 1005 at 2:50-53 (“The preferred method may be
`
`implemented on a program storage device (e.g., a floppy diskette) that is readable
`
`by a processor and that tangibly embodies a program of instructions executable by
`
`the processor to perform the method.”), 4:43-47 (“Until required by the computer
`
`system, the set of instructions may be stored in another computer memory, for
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 21 of 92
`
`
`
`example, in the hard disk drive 36, or in a removable memory such as an optical
`
`disk for eventual use in the CD ROM 42 or in a floppy disk for eventual use in the
`
`floppy disk drive 37.”), 3:26-33 (“The invention protects against thieves, lunchtime
`
`attacks and other invasions of privacy. The invention is useful on so-called
`
`“portables”,…, desktop machines… smartcards and the like.”). Figs. 1 and 2 of
`
`Blakley confirm its applicability to both hard disks and removable media:
`
`
`
`52.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that the system of Blakley can be
`
`applied to removable storage devices as well as hard disks; when so applied, the
`
`security scheme of Blakley (including the index of Blakely) involves the use of
`
`information specific to the removable storage device on which the scheme is used
`
`to encrypt and decrypt data reads and writes. Blakley describes security measures
`
`that are easily transferrable and equally applicable to hard disks and removable
`
`22
`
`storage devices.
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 22 of 92
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,124,301 (“UCHIDA”)
`
`53. As part of my work in this proceeding I was asked to review Uchida. Ex.
`
`1006.
`
`54. Uchida discloses a method “for protecting data recorded on a removable
`
`storage medium.” Ex. 1006 at Abstract. Like the ’459 patent, Uchida discloses a
`
`removable storage device, e.g., “removable storage medium, such as an optical
`
`magnetic disk,” that is inserted into a storage drive, e.g., “optical magnetic disk
`
`apparatus.” Specifically, Uchida discloses “an information processor including a
`
`storage device employing a removable storage medium, such as an optical
`
`magnetic disk.” Ex. 1006 at 5:2-4. The “optical magnetic disk apparatus 1
`
`includes a system controller 10 for writing to and reading out from an optical
`
`magnetic disk used as a storage medium.” Ex. 1006 at 5:46-49. The “optical
`
`magnetic disk apparatus” is an example of the “storage device” in Uchida.
`
`Therefore, what Uchida calls a “storage device,” in my opinion corresponds to
`
`what is referred to in the ’459 Patent’s disclosure and claims as a “storage drive.”
`
`In Uchida, the “removable storage medium” corresponds to the claimed “storage
`
`device.”
`
`55. The system of Uchida detects a removable storage medium when it is
`
`inserted into a storage drive. “[W]hen inserting a removable storage medium to
`
`the storage device 1 or supplying a power for an information processor[], a type of
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 23 of 92
`
`
`
`the inserted storage medium is checked, and settings are performed according to
`
`the type[].” Ex. 1006 at 7:66-8:3.
`
`56. Similar to the ’459 Patent, Uchida discloses a mode “for permitting a user to
`
`write and read, [where] the user can write and read to the whole removable storage
`
`medium.” Ex. 1006 at 3:50-51. Specifically, Uchida explains that when a security
`
`condition is satisfied “it becomes possible to execute processing for reading from
`
`or writing to a whole disk.” Id. at 7:25-27. Uchida further describes a different
`
`mode where the used can “read only one area of the removable storage medium.”
`
`Id. at 3:65-66. Specifically, Uchida discloses that when the security condition is
`
`not satisfied “it is judged whether or not the access request is for writing…If it is
`
`for writing, an error is notified…If [] the request is for reading, a specific area
`
`included in the above-described access request command sent from the computer 2
`
`is checked…If the requested specific area is within the authorized range for
`
`reading access, the user can read data.” Id. at 7:27-43.
`
`57. Uchida generally discusses the security conditions in the context of what it
`
`calls “passwords.” For example, a security condition may be satisfied in Uchida
`
`“when the passwords coincide with each other” (Ex. 1006 at 7:25) and the security
`
`condition may not be satisfied when the “passwords do not coincide” (id. at 7:27-
`
`24
`
`28).
`
`
`
`
`
`NETAPP ET AL. EXHIBIT 1002
`Page 24 of 92
`
`
`
`58.
`
`In the methods disclosed in Uchida, in my opinion, passwords are device-
`
`specific, at least under the broader definition I was instructed to use in my analysis.
`
`Uchida identifies in the background of the invention the well-known problems with
`
`careless administration of passwords in connection with “removable storage
`
`mediums.” Specifically, Uchida discloses that
`
`[W]hen employing either of the conventional methods, it is inclined to
`form a careless administration, such that only one password is
`specified for almost all storage mediums. More particularly, the
`problem occurs if either of the above-described conventional method
`is applied to multiple removable storage mediums.
`Id. at 2: 59-64 (emphasis added).
`
`59.
`
`In my opinion, Uchida essentially describes and claims improvem
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
