Paper 36
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: June 20, 2018
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. and EMC CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: June 20, 2018
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. and EMC CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`In this inter partes review, Lenovo (United States) Inc. and EMC
`Corporation (collectively, “Petitioner”) challenge the patentability of
`claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,387,132 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’132
`patent”), which is assigned to Intellectual Ventures I LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision, issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), addresses issues and
`arguments raised during the trial in this inter partes review. For the reasons
`discussed below, we determine Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of
`the evidence that claims 1 and 9 of the ’132 patent are unpatentable. See 35
`U.S.C. § 316(e) (“In an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the
`petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability
`by a preponderance of the evidence.”).
`
`A. Procedural History
`On December 16, 2016, Petitioner requested inter partes review of
`claims 1 and 9 of the ’132 patent. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Trial was instituted as to
`claims 1 and 9. Paper 9 (“Dec. on Inst.”). The grounds on which Petitioner
`challenges claims 1 and 9 are as follows:
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`References
`
`Cramer1
`Cramer and Banga3
`IBM Using iSCSI4
`IBM Using iSCSI,
`Administrator’s Guide,5 and
`Cramer
`
`Challenged
`Claim(s)
`1 and 9
`1 and 9
`1 and 9
`1 and 9
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e)2
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Pet. 33. The Decision on Institution instituted review on the ground of
`anticipation based on Cramer and on the ground of obviousness based on
`Cramer and Banga. Dec. on Inst. 34. Following the Supreme Court’s
`decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), we modified
`the Decision on Institution to institute on all of the grounds presented in the
`Petition. Paper 34, 2; see also Ex. 3001 (email “advis[ing] the Board that
`Patent Owner will waive its right to file a [Patent Owner Response] and will
`not request an oral hearing on the newly instituted grounds in this
`proceeding. Both parties have conferred and believe this closes the record
`
`
`1 Samuel M. Cramer et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,707,263 (issued Apr. 27,
`2010) (“Cramer”). Ex. 1005.
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, effective
`March 16, 2013. Because the challenged patent was filed before March 16,
`2013, we refer to the pre-AIA version of §§ 102, 103 in this decision.
`3 Gaurav Banga et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,895,429 B2 (issued May 17,
`2005) (“Banga”). Ex. 1008.
`4 Rowell Hernandez et al., Using iSCSI: Solutions’ Planning and
`Implementation, IBM Corporation (Feb. 2002) (“IBM Using iSCSI”).
`Ex. 1006.
`5 IBM TotalStorage IP Storage 200i Administrator’s Guide, IBM
`Corp. (June 2001) (“Administrator’s Guide”). Ex. 1007.
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`and allows the Board to issue a final written decision based on the current
`record.”).
`During the trial, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 15, “PO
`Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 20, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner
`also filed a Motion for Observation (Paper 24), to which Petitioner filed an
`Opposition. Paper 29. An oral hearing was held on March 5, 2018, a
`transcript of which appears in the record. Paper 31 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Real Parties-in-Interest
`Lenovo (United States) Inc. and EMC Corporation state that they are
`the real parties-in-interest and also state that “Lenovo Group Ltd.,
`LenovoEMC Products USA, LLC, Dell Inc., Denali Intermediate Inc., and
`Dell Technologies Inc. may also be considered real parties in interest.”
`Pet. 2.
`
`C. Related Matter
`The parties identify the following district court case in which the ’132
`patent has been asserted: Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd.,
`No. 1:16-cv-10860-IT (D. Mass). Pet. 2–3; Paper 5, 1.
`
`D. The ’132 Patent
`The ’132 patent is directed to methods and systems that provide users
`with a decentralized computing experience. Ex. 1001. The ’132 patent
`explains as background that computing systems require multiple resources to
`provide a “complete computing experience for the user,” including “CPUs,
`memory, monitors, hard disk drives, networks, [and] peripherals.” Id. at
`1:20–25. Home computers, the ’132 patent states, “present a single data
`portal to a user, where the computer contains nearly all aspects of the user’s
`environment, including data, applications, preferred settings, and so on.” Id.
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`at 1:37–40. But many computer users wish to access their data computing
`experience away from home. Ex. 1001, 1:40–43. Specifically, “[u]sers
`are . . . concerned about having access to their data and having the same
`computing experience no matter where they are or what device they use as
`an interface.” Id. at 1:50–54. The ’132 patent explains that several
`computing systems have been developed “to enable a more decentralized
`user experience approach,” but that those systems have several
`disadvantages—including cost and limited data access. Id. at 1:46–66. “In
`order to address these limitations and provide a cost effective computing
`experience for users,” the ’132 patent states, “a fully decentralized approach
`is required.” Id. at 2:1–3.
`Claims 1 and 9 are directed, respectively, to a method and an
`apparatus and recite that a host address is assigned to a “virtual object being
`a logical drive partition that represents an aggregation of storage capabilities
`of a plurality of storage devices.” Id. at 20:54–58, 21:43–46. The claims
`also recite assigning a different host address to a second virtual object, and
`claim 1 further requires associating these different host addresses to a
`common frame address. Id. at 20:59–64, 21:47–49. Notably, claims 1 and 9
`do not further refer to the second virtual object. Rather, these claims further
`recite receiving a packet including the first host address, and claim 1
`requires transforming the packet in a request that is formatted to be
`“compatible with a first storage device of the plurality of storage devices,”
`which pertain to the “first virtual object” previously recited in claim 1. Id. at
`20:65–21:4, 21:50–52. Claims 1 and 9 then recite issuing or providing the
`request to the first storage device. Id. at 21:5–6, 21:53–55. As stated by
`Patent Owner, “[a]ssignment of the host addresses to virtual and target
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`devices allow systems external to the transformation module to route
`information packets to the virtual and target devices using the host
`addresses.” PO Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:48–57, 4:65–5:3, 11:30–39).
`
`E. Challenged Claims
`Claims 1 and 9 are challenged and read as follows:
`1. A method comprising:
`
`assigning, by a packet processor executing on a processing unit of
`an electronic device, a first host address to a first virtual
`object, the first virtual object being a logical drive partition
`that represents an aggregation of storage capabilities of a
`plurality of storage devices;
`
`assigning, by the packet processor, a second host address to a
`second virtual object, wherein the first and second host
`addresses are different network routable addresses that are
`both associated with a common frame address that
`corresponds to a network interface that communicatively
`couples the packet processor to a network;
`
`receiving, by the packet processor, an information packet from the
`network interface, the information packet having a control
`portion including the first host address;
`
`transforming, by the packet processor, the information packet into
`a device-level request that is in a device format compatible
`with a first storage device of the plurality of storage devices;
`and
`
`issuing, by the packet processor, the device-level request to the
`first storage device of the plurality of storage devices.
`9. An apparatus comprising:
`a network interface having a frame address and configured to
`communicatively couple the apparatus to a network;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`a physical processing device coupled with the network
`interface and configured
`to execute a packet
`processor:
`to assign a first host address to a first virtual object,
`the first virtual object being a logical drive
`partition to represent an aggregation of storage
`capabilities of a plurality of storage devices,
`to assign a second host address to a second virtual
`object, wherein the first and second host
`addresses are different network
`routable
`addresses;
`to receive an information packet via the network
`interface, the information packet to have a
`control portion that includes the first host
`address; and
`to provide via the first virtual object a device-level
`request to a first storage device of the plurality
`of storage devices based on the information
`packet.
`Ex. 1001, 20:53–21:6, 21:38–55.
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Citing the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Scott C. Karlin, Petitioner
`argues:
`[A] person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’132 patent as of
`May 26, 2005 would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer
`science or electrical engineering and 3-5 years of professional
`experience in computer network or storage system design, or a
`master’s or doctorate degree in computer science or electrical
`engineering and 1-2 years of professional experience in
`computer network or storage system design, or equivalent
`academic experience.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 26). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Prashant
`Shenoy, testifies:
`[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
`bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering,
`electrical engineering, or equivalent, with two to three years of
`work experience in the field of computer networking, storage
`systems, or a related field. Lack of experience can be remedied
`by additional education or vice versa.
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 18.
`Neither party explains in detail why its proposed level of ordinary
`skill in the art should be adopted nor how the different levels affect the
`parties’ analyses. Although there are slight differences between the
`proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art, the parties agree that an
`ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a four-year technical degree with
`work experience in computer networks or storage systems. Pet. 10 (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 26); Ex. 2001 ¶ 18. Both parties also agree that additional
`education may take the place of educational experience. Pet. 10 (citing Ex.
`1002 ¶ 26); Ex. 2001 ¶ 18.
`Based on the evidence of record, the subject matter at issue, and the
`prior art of record, we adopt Patent Owner’s level of ordinary skill in the art,
`specifically that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`claimed invention would have had “bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent, with two to
`three years of work experience in the field of computer networking, storage
`systems, or a related field.” We agree with both parties that additional
`education would make up for less professional experience. Ex. 2001 ¶ 18;
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 26. We note, however, that our analysis would be the same if we
`adopted either party’s proposed level of ordinary skill.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Under that standard, we presume that a claim term carries its “ordinary and
`customary meaning,” which “is the meaning that the term would have to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in question” at the time of the invention.
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal
`quotations and citation omitted); see also Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812
`F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under a broadest reasonable
`interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless
`such meaning is inconsistent with the specification and prosecution history.”
`(Citation omitted)). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth
`in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In
`re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioner proposed constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 18–21.
`The Decision on Institution addressed the broadest reasonable interpretation
`of “control portion,” determining that this term “encompasses a portion of an
`information packet that includes information used to determine how the
`packet should be routed.” Dec. on Inst. 14. During the trial, Patent Owner
`stated that it “does not concede the Board’s construction is correct and
`maintains that a control portion should be construed to mean ‘a contiguous
`portion of a packet that includes information used to determine how the
`packet should be routed.’” PO Resp. 8. Patent Owner, however, further
`states that “the Board does not need to resolve this issue to decide any
`dispute in this IPR.” PO Resp. 8. Following institution, the parties did not
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`otherwise address claim construction. See PO Resp. 8; Pet. Reply 2.
`Based on the record developed during trial, we determine that we need
`not expressly construe any term in the challenged claims to decide the issues
`of patentability before us.
`
`C. Legal Standards
`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. Net
`MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`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) (citation omitted).
`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) any secondary
`considerations, if in evidence.6 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966).
`
`
`6 Patent Owner does not present arguments or evidence of such secondary
`considerations.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`D. Anticipation by Cramer and Obviousness over Cramer and Banga
`Petitioner contends claims 1 and 9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(e) as anticipated by Cramer and under 103(a) as obvious over Cramer
`and Banga. Pet. 35–45, 58–60. For the reasons that follow, we determine
`Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Cramer
`anticipated claim 9 and that claims 1 and 9 would have been obvious based
`on the combined teachings of Cramer and Banga.
`
`1. Cramer
`Cramer discloses that “[t]he present invention relates . . . to accessing
`files in a networked storage system.” Ex. 1005, 1:7–9. As background,
`Cramer explains that “[a] file server [(filer)] is a computer that provides file
`service relating to the organization of information on storage devices, such
`as disks.” Id. at 1:13–15. Cramer discloses that “[d]isk storage is typically
`implemented as one or more storage ‘volumes’ that comprise physical
`storage disks, defining an overall logical arrangement of storage space.” Id.
`at 2:17–19. Cramer then discloses that “[t]he disks within a volume are
`typically organized as one or more groups of Redundant Array of
`Independent (or Inexpensive) Disks (RAID).” Id. at 2:24–26.
`Cramer discloses:
`As part of a network storage system, clients request the
`services of a filer’s file system, i.e. making a data access request,
`by issuing file system protocol messages (in the form of packets)
`to the filer over the network. The filer fulfills a data access
`request by locating and packaging the data, and then sending the
`data through the network back to the requesting client.
`Ex. 1005, 3:61–67. Cramer, however, discloses that “[a] noted disadvantage
`of prior implementations arises for a client when a filer is taken out [of] the
`network, and its network address becomes unavailable to other computers or
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`network devices connected to the network.” Id. at 4:9–12. “Accordingly, it
`is an object of the invention to provide for a system and method for
`associating network addresses with volumes so that clients can seamlessly
`and transparently address I/O operations to the specified network address for
`a given volume without concern for the network address of the file server
`managing the particular volume.” Id. at 4:37–42.
`Cramer describes an example of a file server, or filer, in Figure 2,
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`FIG. 2 provides a schematic block diagram of a file server embodiment.
`Ex. 1005, 5:14–15. Cramer discloses that “filer 110 comprises a
`processor 222, a memory 224, a network adapter 226 and a storage adapter
`228 interconnected by a system bus 225.” Id. at 6:47–49. “The filer 110
`also includes a storage operating system 230 that implements a file system to
`logically organize the information as a hierarchical structure of directories
`and files on the disks.” Id. at 6:49–52. Cramer further discloses that “[t]he
`storage adapter 228 cooperates with the storage operating system 230
`executing on the filer to access information requested by the client, which
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`information may be stored on a number of storage volumes 122.” Id. at
`7:24–27.
`Cramer also discloses that “the storage operating system 230 has
`additional software layers, such as a disk mapping layer 340 for mapping an
`individual volume to a specified network address.” Id. at 8:45–47. Cramer
`explains that “an IP volume is a volume, individual disk or group of disks
`that is associated with a network address in accordance with this invention.”
`Id. at 8:58–60. “By ‘network address’ it is meant any method of identifying
`a networked computer or file server over a networking architecture. An
`Internet Protocol (IP) address is used in this description for exemplary
`purposes only.” Id. at 8:60–64.
`Cramer provides in Figure 4, reproduced below, “a flow chart
`detailing the procedure that the storage operating system, specifically the
`disk mapping layer, performs in response to a command to configure disks
`associated with a particular file server.” Id. at 9:4–7.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`
`
`FIG. 4 provides a flowchart of the process to configure volumes as IP
`volumes. Ex. 1005, 5:18–19. “If the disk is an IP volume the disk mapping
`layer obtains an IP address for the storage device (step 408).” Id. at 9:33–
`34. Cramer explains that “[i]n one embodiment, each filer will be assigned a
`series of IP addresses for use with IP volumes that it manages.” Id. at 9:36–
`38. Cramer further discloses that, “in step 410, the IP address for the storage
`device is mapped to a network interface controller (NIC),” which “occurs
`within the filer.” Id. at 9:44–46. Cramer then explains that, “[a]fter the
`address is mapped to a NIC, . . . the machine address code (MAC) associated
`with the NIC will respond to the mapped IP address.” Id. at 9:46–49. “In
`step 412, the IP address is then advertised over the appropriate NICs.” Id. at
`9:55–56. Cramer discloses that “[o]ther network devices, such as switches
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`and routers, will, in response to receipt of such routing topology
`information, direct packets addressed to the volume’s IP address to the filer
`for further routing to the volume.” Id. at 9:67–10:3.
`Cramer discloses that an advantage of this scheme is that “clients
`accessing data stored on an IP volume only have to know the IP address of
`the volume. The actual filer managing the volume can be changed without
`affecting the clients.” Id. at 11:4–7.
`
`2. Banga
`Banga also relates to storage systems and describes a file server (filer)
`“having multiple virtual filers configured to participate in multiple private
`address spaces having potentially overlapping network addresses.”
`Ex. 1008, 1:10–13. Describing filer 200 of Figure 2, Banga discloses that
`“[e]ach NIC may include a single interface 218” and that “[e]ach interface
`218 may be assigned one or more Internet Protocol (IP) addresses along with
`one media access control (MAC) address.” Id. at 6:38–46. Banga also
`discloses that “the term network interface refers to an IP addressable
`interface, including a ‘physical’ NIC that can be assigned one or more IP
`addresses.” Id. at 10:27–30. Banga further discloses:
`[E]ach vfnet [(virtual filer network)] object represents a
`“floating” capability that may be assigned to any network
`interface, e.g., a NIC, when an IP address is assigned to that
`NIC. If multiple IP addresses are assigned to the NIC, the
`capabilities of the NIC are effectively shared between multiple
`vfnet objects and, thus, potentially different vfilers.
`Id. at 12:1–6. Thus, Banga describes assigning multiple IP addresses to a
`single NIC to “effectively share[]” the capabilities of the NIC among
`multiple vfnet objects.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`3. Claim 1
`a. “Assigning . . . a first host address”
`Claim 1 recites “[a] method comprising: assigning, by a packet
`processor executing on a processing unit of an electronic device, a first host
`address to a first virtual object, the first virtual object being a logical drive
`partition that represents an aggregation of storage capabilities of a plurality
`of storage devices.”
`Petitioner contends Cramer’s storage operating system 230 executing
`on processor 222 of file server 110 describes “a packet processor executing
`on a processing unit of an electronic device.” Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:61–
`64, 6:33–52, 8:1–2, Figs. 2, 3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 56). In describing “exemplary file
`server 110,” Cramer discloses:
`The filer 110 comprises a processor 222, a memory 224, a
`network adapter 226 and a storage adapter 228 interconnected by
`a system bus 225. The filer 110 also includes a storage operating
`system 230 that implements a file system to logically organize
`the information as a hierarchical structure of directories and files
`on the disks.
`Ex. 1005, 6:47–52. Cramer further states that “portions of [storage
`operating system 230] are typically resident in memory and executed by the
`processing elements.” Id. at 6:60–61. As Petitioner correctly notes, the ’132
`patent states that “packet processors contain[] any combination of hardware,
`software, or firmware.” Ex. 1001, 11:5–6, cited in Pet. 18. We find,
`therefore, that Cramer’s storage operating system software, which executes
`on the processing elements of the file server (i.e., processor 222 of filer 110),
`describes “a packet processor executing on a processing unit of an electronic
`device.”
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`Petitioner further contends Cramer discloses that its storage operating
`system assigns an IP address to an IP volume, which Petitioner asserts
`describes assigning “a first host address to a first virtual object.” Pet. 36–37
`(citing Ex. 1005, 8:58–64, 9:33–46, Fig. 4). Petitioner also contends
`Cramer’s “IP volume” describes “a logical drive partition that represents an
`aggregation of storage capabilities of a plurality of storage devices,” as
`recited in claim 1. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:17–26, 8:58–60).
`Patent Owner argues “Cramer never describes its IP volumes as
`logical constructs.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Shenoy,
`similarly testifies that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] reading Cramer
`would not have understood Cramer’s IP volumes to be logical constructs.”
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 40. Cramer’s express disclosure, however, belies these
`assertions. In particular, Cramer states that “[d]isk storage is typically
`implemented as one or more storage ‘volumes’ that comprise physical
`storage disks, defining an overall logical arrangement of storage space.”
`Ex. 1005, 2:17–19 (emphasis added), cited in Pet. 24, 38. When asked about
`this disclosure during oral argument, Patent Owner stated: “[T]he column 2
`description is, of course, the background of the invention. It’s not an
`embodiment of Cramer.” Tr. 20:3–4. Patent Owner also stated that
`Petitioner did not “drag in the disclosure from column 2 until the reply.” Id.
`at 20:5. As to the latter assertion, we disagree because Petitioner cites
`lines 17 through 26 of column 2 in Cramer twice in the Petition—in an
`overview of Cramer (Pet. 24) and in its assertion as to this claim limitation
`(Pet. 38). As to the former assertion, we find Cramer’s disclosure in
`column 2 related to volumes describes how the term “volume” is used
`throughout Cramer, including in the description of Cramer’s disclosed
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`invention. In the “Background of the Invention” section, Cramer states:
`“As described herein, a volume typically comprises at least one data disk
`and one associated parity disk (or possibly data/parity[] partitions in a . . .
`single disk) arranged according to a RAID 4, or equivalent high-reliability,
`implementation.” Ex. 1005, 2:35–38. This demonstrates that Cramer uses
`the “Background of the Invention” section to inform the reader as to how the
`term “volume” is used throughout the patent. Cramer further states, in the
`“Background of the Invention” section, that “it is an object of the invention
`to provide for a system and method for associating network addresses with
`volumes.” Id. at 4:38–40. We see nothing in Cramer that introduces a
`definition for “volume” that replaces the description in the “Background of
`the Invention” section. Cramer states: “Additionally, it should be noted that
`the term ‘volume’ can also be defined to include a logical unit number
`(LUN) that designates one or more disks.” Id. at 6:25–27. Although this
`disclosure evidences an additional feature of a “volume,” it does not replace
`the previous description of “volume.” Rather, this disclosure and the rest of
`Cramer rely on the description of “volume” in the “Background of the
`Invention” section.
`We agree with Petitioner’s contention that Cramer describes
`“assigning, by a packet processor executing on a processing unit of an
`electronic device, a first host address to a first virtual object, the first virtual
`object being a logical drive partition that represents an aggregation of
`storage capabilities of a plurality of storage devices.” See Pet. 35–38. As
`discussed above, we find that Cramer’s storage operating system software,
`which executes on the processing elements of the file server (i.e., processor
`222 of filer 110), describes “a packet processor executing on a processing
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`unit of an electronic device.” Cramer discloses that “storage operating
`system 230 has additional software layers, such as a disk mapping layer 340
`for mapping an individual volume to a specified network address.”
`Ex. 1005, 8:45–47, cited in Pet. 37. Figure 4, reproduced above in the
`overview of Cramer, is “a flow chart detailing the procedure that the storage
`operating system, specifically the disk mapping layer, performs in response
`to a command to configure disks associated with a particular file server.”
`Ex. 1005, 9:4–7. Cramer explains that, “[i]f the disk is an IP volume the
`disk mapping layer obtains an IP address for the storage device (step 408).”
`Ex. 1005, 9:33–34, cited in Pet. 37. Therefore, Cramer describes that
`storage operating system 230 performs the assigning of a network address.
`Petitioner asserts Cramer’s “IP volume” describes a “virtual object”
`that is “a logical drive partition that represents an aggregation of storage
`capabilities of a plurality of storage devices.” Pet. 37–38. We agree.
`Cramer discloses:
`As used in this description an IP volume is a volume,
`individual disk or group of disks that is associated with a
`network address in accordance with this invention. By
`“network address” it is meant any method of identifying a
`networked computer or file server over a networking
`architecture. An Internet Protocol (IP) address is used in this
`description for exemplary purposes only. It is expressly
`contemplated that other forms of network addressing schemes
`and associated address structures can be used in accordance
`with the teachings of this invention without deviating from the
`spirit or scope of the invention. As such, the term “IP address”
`should be taken to include any acceptable network address
`format.
`Ex. 1005, 8:58–64, cited in Pet. 37. Thus, an IP volume in Cramer is a
`“volume,” which, as discussed above, Cramer describes as “compris[ing]
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`physical storage disks, defining an overall logical arrangement of storage
`space.” Ex. 1005, 2:18–19. Cramer states: “As described herein, a volume
`typically comprises at least one data disk and one associated parity disk (or
`possibly data/parity[] partitions in a . . . single disk) arranged according to a
`RAID 4, or equivalent high-reliability, implementation.” Id. at 2:35–38.
`Cramer further states that “[t]he disks within a volume are typically
`organized as one or more groups of Redundant Array of Independent (or
`Inexpensive) Disks (RAID).” Id. at 2:24–26, cited in Pet. 38. Cramer
`expressly discloses, therefore, a volume having multiple disks (i.e., “a
`plurality of storage devices”), and it expressly discloses that a volume
`“defin[es] an overall logical arrangement of storage space.” Id. at 2:17–26,
`35–38. Patent Owner’s arguments that Cramer does not describe the
`claimed “logical drive partition that represents an aggregation of storage
`capabilities of a plurality of storage devices” fail to address Cramer’s
`express description of the term “volume.” See PO Resp. 15–17; Ex. 2001
`¶¶ 40–46. Based on this disclosure, we find that Cramer’s “IP volume”
`describes a “virtual object” that is “a logical drive partition that represents an
`aggregation of storage capabilities of a plurality of storage devices.”
`Based on the foregoing, we find Cramer describes “[a] method
`comprising: assigning, by a packet processor executing on a processing unit
`of an electronic device, a first host address to a first virtual object, the first
`virtual object being a logical drive partition that represents an aggregation of
`storage capabilities of a plurality of storage devices.”
`b. “Assigning . . . a second host address”
`Claim 1 further recites “assigning, by the packet processor, a second
`host address to a second virtual object, wherein the first and second host
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00477
`Patent 8,387,132 B2
`
`addresses are different network routable addresses.” Referring to the
`process depicted in the flow chart of Figure 4, Cramer discloses that “each
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
