`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Egenera, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`———————
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,231,430
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................. 4
`
`I. Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................. 5
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest................................................................................. 5
`
`B. Related Matters .......................................................................................... 5
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ............................... 5
`
`II. Grounds for Standing ......................................................................................... 6
`
`III. Requested Relief ................................................................................................ 6
`
`IV. Reasons for the Requested Relief ...................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`’430 patent ................................................................................................. 6
`
`B. Priority Date .............................................................................................. 7
`
`C. Prosecution History ................................................................................... 8
`
`D. Summary of the Petition ............................................................................ 8
`
`E. Challenged Claims ..................................................................................... 9
`
`V. Claim Construction ............................................................................................ 9
`
`VI. Statutory Grounds for Challenges ..................................................................... 9
`
`VII. Grosner is Prior Art under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) .................................................10
`
`VIII. Note Regarding Page Citations & Emphasis ...................................................21
`
`IX. Identification of How the Claims are Unpatentable ........................................22
`
`A. Challenge #1: Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§103(a) over Aziz in view of Grosner .....................................................22
`
`1. Aziz .................................................................................................22
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`2. Grosner ............................................................................................23
`
`3. Reasons to Combine ........................................................................26
`
`4. Detailed Claim Analysis .................................................................33
`
`B. Challenge #2: Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rendered obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) by Aziz in view of Grosner and further in view of
`Katzri .......................................................................................................82
`
`1. Katzri ...............................................................................................82
`
`2. Reasons to Combine ........................................................................83
`
`3. Detailed Claim Analysis .................................................................85
`
`X. Conclusion .......................................................................................................91
`
`XI. Certificate of Word Count ...............................................................................92
`
`Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................93
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`April 28, 2017
`
`CSCO-1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430 to Brownell et al. (“the ’430 patent”)
`
`CSCO-1002 Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`CSCO-1003 Provisional Application No. 60/285,296 (“the ’296 provisional
`application”)
`
`CSCO-1004 Declaration of Dr. Prashant Shenoy under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`CSCO-1005 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Prashant Shenoy
`
`CSCO-1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,597,956 to Aziz et al. (“Aziz”)
`
`CSCO-1007 U.S. Patent No. 7,089,293 to Grosner et al. (“Grosner”)
`
`CSCO-1008 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/245,295 to Grosner et
`al. (“Grosner provisional application”)
`
`CSCO-1009 U.S. Patent No. 6,639,901 to Katzri et al. (“Katzri”)
`
`CSCO-1010 Declaration of David Bader
`CSCO-1011 Freedman, A., COMPUTER DESKTOP ENCYCLOPEDIA, 9th ed. (2001)
`(selected pages)
`CSCO-1012 Gallo, M., NETWORKING EXPLAINED, 2nd ed., (2002) (selected
`pages)
`
`CSCO-1013
`
`Jones, V., HIGH AVAILABILITY NETWORKING WITH CISCO, (2000)
`(selected pages)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The Petitioner and real party in interest is Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`As of the filing date of this petition and to the best knowledge of the
`
`Petitioner, U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430 (“the ’430 patent”) is involved in the
`
`following litigation: Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (No. 1-16-cv-11613, D.
`
`Mass.).
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`
`214-651-5533
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 32,271
`
`
`972-739-8649
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 57,456
`
`
`
`972-739-8782
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`whitman.burns.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 63,895
`
`Lead Counsel
`David L. McCombs
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Theodore M. Foster
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`and
`
`R. Whitman Burns
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’430 patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the claims on the grounds identified herein.
`
`III. REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board institute a trial for inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-8 of the ’430 patent and cancel these claims as unpatentable.
`
`IV. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`The full statement of the reasons for the relief requested is as follows:
`
`A.
`
`’430 patent
`
`The ’430 patent relates to “processing systems having virtualized
`
`communication networks and storage for quick deployment and reconfiguration.”
`
`CSCO-1001, 1:17-19. A “platform provides a large pool of processors from which
`
`a subset may be selected and configured through software commands to form a
`
`virtualized network of computers[.]” Id., 2:47-51 “The virtualization may include
`
`virtualization of local area networks (LANs) or the virtualization of I/O storage.”
`
`Id., 2:55-57.
`
`Figure 1 (below) shows “a preferred hardware platform 100 [that] includes a
`
`set of processing nodes 105a–n connected to switch fabrics 115a,b via high-speed,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`interconnect 110a,b.” Id., 2:65-67. “The switch fabric 115a,b is also connected to
`
`at least one control node 120a,b that is in communication with an external IP
`
`network 125 (or other data communication network), and with a storage area
`
`network (SAN) 130.” Id., 3:1-4.
`
`
`
`CSCO-1001, Figure 1.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date
`
`The ’430 patent claims the benefit of U.S Provisional Application No.
`
`60/285,296 filed on 4/20/2001. CSCO-1001, p.1. However, the ’296 provisional
`
`application does not provide written description support for the claims under 35
`
`U.S.C. 112. For example, the provisional application does not describe “software
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`commands specifying (i) a number of processors…,” or “logic to select, under
`
`programmatic control, a corresponding set of computer processors….” Compare,
`
`e.g., CSCO-1003, p.21 to CSCO-1001, 3:55-56. As another example, the
`
`provisional application does not describe “software commands specifying… (ii) a
`
`virtual local area network topology….” Compare, e.g., CSCO-1003, p.6 to CSCO-
`
`1001, 5:56-59. Because all independent claims include these or similar features,
`
`the ’430 patent is entitled only to its filing date, 1/4/2002.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`After a first Office action rejection, the claims were amended to emphasize
`
`“automatically” deploying processing area networks under “programmatic
`
`control.” CSCO-1002, pp.122, 144.
`
`The claims were then rejected as anticipated by U.S. 6,597,956 to Aziz
`
`(“Aziz”) (CSCO-1006). CSCO-1002, p.111. Applicants argued that Aziz’s control
`
`plane is different than the claimed “control node” because, in contrast to
`
`Applicants’ claims, “the network and storage I/O do not go through control plane.”
`
`Id., p.100.
`
`Following an Examiner’s Amendment, the claims were allowed. Id., p.31.
`
`D.
`
`Summary of the Petition
`
`It was known prior to the ’430 patent’s priority date to provide network and
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`storage I/O (input/output) that go through a control node. Specifically,
`
`U.S. 7,089,293 to Grosner (“Grosner”) (CSCO-1007), which was not considered
`
`during prosecution, teaches a Pirus box (“control node”) that integrates switching
`
`and control functionality, and processes both network and storage I/O. By
`
`integrating Aziz’s switching and control plane into a single device, as described by
`
`Grosner, the combination renders obvious a “control node” that programmatically
`
`configures a virtual network and processes network and storage I/O, as claimed.
`
`Petitioner requests that claims 1-8 of the ’430 patent be held unpatentable
`
`because they merely recite obvious combinations of known features.
`
`E. Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1-8 of the ’430 patent are challenged in this Petition.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`This Petition analyzes the claims consistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). All claim
`
`terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, as understood by a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) consistent with the disclosure.
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, slip op., p.17 (U.S. 2016). For the purpose of this
`
`proceeding, Petitioner does not propose any terms for an express construction.
`
`VI. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGES
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`over Aziz and Grosner. Aziz was filed on 8/2/2000. Grosner was filed on
`
`11/2/2001 and is entitled to the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No.
`
`60/245,295 (“Grosner provisional application”) filed on 11/2/2000. Aziz and
`
`Grosner are prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e).
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`over Aziz, Grosner, and U.S. 6,639,901 (“Katzri”) (CSCO-1009). Katzri was filed
`
`on 1/24/2000 and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e).
`
`VII. GROSNER IS PRIOR ART UNDER 35 U.S.C. §102(E)
`
`Grosner claims the benefit of the Grosner provisional application filed on
`
`November 2, 2000. As analyzed below, the subject matter of Grosner’s claim 1 is
`
`“disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112” in the
`
`Grosner provisional application. 35 U.S.C §119(e); Dynamic Drinkware v. Nat’l
`
`Graphics Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Grosner has “the same
`
`effect… as though filed on the date of the provisional application,” so Grosner is
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as of 11/2/2000. Id.
`
`The following chart demonstrates that the Grosner provisional application
`
`describes the subject matter of Grosner claim 1 as required by 35 U.S.C. §112, first
`
`paragraph. In particular, the Grosner provisional application describes a network
`
`management system (NMS) including a “Pirus System,” which has all of the
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`features—and performs all of the functions—of the claimed “switch element.” The
`
`Pirus System receives SNMP queries1 and communicates via SCSI2 commands
`
`with disks attached via Fibre Channel (“FC”) to the Pirus System and remote from
`
`the NMS. Each disk attached to the Pirus System is remote from the NMS, and is
`
`therefore a “remote SCSI device.”
`
`Grosner Provisional Application
`In data networks based on IP/Ethernet
`technology a set of standards has developed
`that permit users manage/operate
`their
`networks using a heterogeneous collection of
`hardware and software. These standards include
`Ethernet, Internet Protocol (IP), …and Simple
`Network Management Protocol
`(SNMP).
`Network Management Systems (NMS) such
`as HP Open View utilize these standards to
`discover and monitor network devices.
`CSCO-1008, p.82.
`
`Grosner Claim 1
`1. In an IP data
`network including a
`network
`management system
`(NMS), a switch
`element operable to
`communicate with
`the NMS via the IP
`network, and at least
`one remote SCSI
`device attached to
`the switch element,
`a method of
`automatically
`discovering the
`remote SCSI device
`via the network, the
`method comprising:
`
`1 SNMP is a well-known abbreviation in the computer arts referring to Simple
`
`Network Management Protocol. CSCO-1004, ¶56.
`
`2 “SCSI” is a well-known protocol, commonly used to attach storage devices such
`
`as hard disks to a computer. CSCO-1011, p.870; CSCO-1010, ¶2; CSCO-1004,
`
`¶44.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`Grosner Claim 1
`
`Grosner Provisional Application
`
`
`
`CSCO-1008, p.83.
`In this configuration the NMS cannot discover
`("see") the disks attached to the FC Switch but
`it can discovery ("see") the disks attached to
`the Pirus System. This is because the Pirus
`System does the following:
`
`Id.
`
`For example, storage devices attached to FC
`ports… will be "ping-able", "discoverable" and
`support a limited scope of MIB variables.
`In order to accomplish this IP addresses [are]
`assigned to the storage devices (either manually
`or automatically) and the MIC will have to be
`sent all IP Mgmt (exact list TBD) packets
`destined for one of the storage IP addresses.
`The MIC will then mediate by converting the
`IP packet (request) to a similar FC/SCSI
`request and sending it to the device.
`CSCO-1008, p.32.
`SCSI target mode support will be required if
`external FC hosts are permitted to indirectly
`access remote SCSI disks via mediation (e.g..
`
`12
`
`

`

`Grosner Claim 1
`
`assigning, in the
`switch element, an
`IP address for the
`remote SCSI device;
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`Grosner Provisional Application
`SCSI/FC -> SCSI/FC via SCSI/TCP).
`CSCO-1008, p.55.
`This is because the Pirus System does the
`following:
`Assigns an IP address to each disk attached
`to it.
`CSCO-1008, p.83.
`The SCSI mediator acts as a SCSI server to
`incoming IP payload. This thin module maps
`between IP addresses and SCSI devices and
`LUNs.
`CSCO-1008, p.55.
`
`
`
`CSCO-1008, p.84.
`SCSI target mode support will be required if
`external FC hosts are permitted to indirectly
`access remote SCSI disks via mediation (e.g ..
`SCSI/FC -> SCSI/FC via SCSI/TCP).
`CSCO-1008, p.55.
`The Pirus box will route, switch and bridge
`multiple protocols over a variety of links, and
`will support Fibre Channel, Gigabit Ethernet
`and SCSI protocols and platforms, enabling
`servers, NAS devices, IP and Fibre Channel
`
`13
`
`

`

`Grosner Claim 1
`
`creating, in the
`switch element, an
`address resolution
`protocol (ARP)
`table including a
`table entry for the
`remote SCSI device,
`the ARP table entry
`providing a
`mapping between
`the IP address and a
`physical address
`corresponding to the
`remote SCSI device;
`receiving, at the
`switch element, a
`query representative
`of a request to
`discover SCSI
`devices;
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`Grosner Provisional Application
`switches on SANs, WANs or LANs
`interoperate.
`CSCO-1008, p.7.
`
`to
`
`…the Pirus System does the following:…
`Creates an Address Resolution Protocol
`(ARP) table entry for each disk. This is a
`simple table that contains a mapping between
`IP and physical addresses.”
`CSCO-1008, p.83.
`“The SCSI mediator acts as a SCSI server to
`incoming IP payload. This thin module maps
`between IP addresses and SCSI devices and
`LUNs.
`CSCO-1008, p.55.
`
`…the Pirus System does the following:…
`When the NMS uses SNMP to query the
`Pirus System, the Pirus System will return an
`ARP entry for each disk attached to it.
`CSCO-1008, p.83.
`In this configuration the NMS cannot discover
`("see") the disks attached to the FC Switch but
`it can discovery ("see") the disks attached to
`the Pirus System.
`
`Id.
`
`This application will "hide" storage and FC
`parameters from IP-centric administrators. For
`example, storage devices attached to FC
`ports will appear as IP devices in an HP-Open
`View network map. These devices will be
`"ping-able", "discoverable" and support a
`limited scope of MIB variables.
`CSCO-1008, p.32.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`Grosner Provisional Application
`…the Pirus System does the following:…
`When the NMS uses SNMP to query the Pirus
`System, the Pirus System will return an ARP
`entry for each disk attached to it.
`CSCO-1008, p.83.
`
`The NMS will then "ping" (send ICMP echo
`request) for each ARP entry it receives from the
`Pirus System.
`The Pirus System will intercept the ICMP
`echo requests….
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`The Pirus System will … translate the ICMP
`echo into a SCSI Read Block 0 request and
`send it to the disk.
`
`The Pirus System will… translate the ICMP
`echo into a SCSI Read Block 0 request and
`send it to the disk.
`
`the SCSI Read Block 0 request
`If
`successfully completes then the Pirus System
`acknowledges the "ping" by sending back an
`ICMP echo reply to the NMS…
`The end result of these actions is that the
`NMS will learn about the existence of each
`disk attached to the Pirus System and verify
`that it can reach it. The NMS has now
`discovered the device.
`
`Grosner Claim 1
`returning, in
`response to receipt
`of the query, the
`ARP entry for the
`remote SCSI device;
`
`receiving, at the
`switch element, in
`response to return of
`the ARP entry, an
`echo request for the
`remote SCSI device;
`
`translating, at the
`switch element, the
`echo request into a
`SCSI read request;
`
`
`transmitting the
`SCSI read request
`from the switch
`element to the
`remote SCSI device;
`and
`
`if the SCSI read
`request successfully
`completes, returning
`an echo reply in
`response to the echo
`request, the echo
`reply notifying the
`NMS of the
`existence of the
`remote SCSI device
`attached to the
`switch element and
`
`15
`
`

`

`Grosner Claim 1
`verifying that the
`NMS can access the
`remote SCSI device,
`or
`
`if the SCSI read
`request fails, not
`responding to the
`echo request.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`Grosner Provisional Application
`
`If the SCSI Read Block 0 request fails then
`the Pirus System will not respond to the
`"ping" request.
`
`Id.
`
`Additionally, the following chart demonstrates that the Grosner provisional
`
`Application describes the subject matter of Grosner claim 8 as required by 35
`
`U.S.C. §112, first paragraph. The Pirus System corresponds to the claimed “switch
`
`element,” and a disk attached to the Pirus System (which responds to SCSI
`
`commands and is remote from the NMS) corresponds to the claimed “remote SCSI
`
`device.”
`
`Grosner Claim 8
`8. In an IP data
`network including a
`network management
`system (NMS), a
`switch element
`operable to
`communicate with the
`NMS via the IP
`network, and at least
`one remote SCSI
`device attached to the
`switch element, a
`method of
`automatically
`monitoring the remote
`
`Grosner Provisional Application
`In data networks based on IP/Ethernet
`technology a set of standards has developed
`that permit users manage/operate
`their
`networks using a heterogeneous collection
`of hardware and software. These standards
`include Ethernet, Internet Protocol (IP),…
`and Simple Network Management Protocol
`(SNMP). Network Management Systems
`(NMS) such as HP Open View utilize these
`standards to discover and monitor network
`devices.
`CSCO-1008, p.82.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`Grosner Provisional Application
`
`Grosner Claim 8
`SCSI device via the
`network, the method
`comprising:
`
`
`
`CSCO-1008, p.83.
`In order to accomplish this IP addresses
`[are] assigned to the storage devices (either
`manually or automatically) and the MIC
`will have to be sent all IP Mgmt (exact list
`TBD) packets destined for one of the
`storage IP addresses. The MIC will then
`mediate by converting
`the
`IP packet
`(request) to a similar FC/SCSI request and
`sending it to the device.
`CSCO-1008, p.32.
`The above features of the Pirus System
`allow storage devices attached to a Pirus
`System be discovered and managed by an
`IP-based NMS.
`CSCO-1008, p.85.
`
`assigning, in the switch
`element, an IP address
`for the remote SCSI
`device;
`
`Id.
`
`…the Pirus System does the following:
`Assigns an IP address to each disk
`attached to it.
`
`The SCSI mediator acts as a SCSI server to
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`Grosner Claim 8
`
`Grosner Provisional Application
`incoming IP payload. This thin module
`maps between IP addresses and SCSI
`devices and LUNs.
`CSCO-1008, p.55.
`
`
`
`CSCO-1008, p.84.
`SCSI target mode support will be required if
`external FC hosts are permitted to indirectly
`access remote SCSI disks via mediation
`(e.g .. SCSI/FC -> SCSI/FC via SCSI/TCP).
`CSCO-1008, p.55.
`The Pirus box will route, switch and bridge
`multiple protocols over a variety of links,
`and will support Fibre Channel, Gigabit
`Ethernet and SCSI protocols and platforms,
`enabling servers, NAS devices, IP and Fibre
`Channel switches on SANs, WANs or
`LANs to interoperate.
`CSCO-1008, p.7.
`
`…the Pirus System does the following:…
`Creates an Address Resolution Protocol
`(ARP) table entry for each disk. This is a
`simple
`table
`that contains a mapping
`between IP and physical addresses.
`
`18
`
`creating, in the switch
`element, an address
`resolution protocol
`(ARP) table including a
`table entry for the
`remote SCSI device,
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`Grosner Claim 8
`the ARP table entry
`providing a mapping
`between the IP address
`and a physical address
`corresponding to the
`remote SCSI device;
`
`receiving, at the switch
`element, an SNMP
`access request for the
`remote SCSI device;
`
`Grosner Provisional Application
`CSCO-1008, p.83.
`The SCSI mediator acts as a SCSI server to
`incoming IP payload. This thin module
`maps between IP addresses and SCSI
`devices and LUNs.
`CSCO-1008, p.55.
`
`Once the device (disk) has been discovered
`by the NMS it will start sending it SNMP
`requests to learn what the device can do
`(i.e., determine its level of functionality.)
`The Pirus System will intercept these
`SNMP requests and generate a SCSI
`request to the device.
`CSCO-1008, p.83-84.
`
`translating, at the
`switch element, the
`SNMP access request
`into a SCSI request;
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`The Pirus System will intercept these SNMP
`requests and generate a SCSI request to
`the device.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`Grosner Claim 8
`
`Grosner Provisional Application
`
`CSCO-1008, p.84.
`This is essentially an SNMP <->SCSI
`converter/translator.
`
`Id.
`
`transmitting the SCSI
`request from the switch
`element to the remote
`SCSI device;
`
`receiving, at the switch
`element, in response to
`the transmitted SCSI
`request, a SCSI reply;
`
`The Pirus System will intercept these SNMP
`requests and generate a SCSI request to
`the device.
`CSCO-1008, p.83-84.
`
`The response to the SCSI request will be
`converted back into an SNMP reply….
`CSCO-1008, p.84.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Grosner Claim 8
`
`translating, at the
`switch element, the
`SCSI reply into a
`SNMP reply;
`
`and transmitting the
`SNMP reply to the
`NMS.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`Grosner Provisional Application
`Id.
`
`The response to the SCSI request will be
`converted back into an SNMP reply….
`This is essentially an SNMP <->SCSI
`converter/translator.
`
`The response to the SCSI request will be
`converted back into an SNMP reply and
`returned to the NMS.
`
`
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`VIII. NOTE REGARDING PAGE CITATIONS & EMPHASIS
`
`Because Grosner incorporates the Grosner provisional application by
`
`reference (CSCO-1007, 1:5-10), Petitioner’s citations to Grosner are to the Grosner
`
`provisional application. Petitioner relies only on material disclosed in Grosner as
`
`of the Grosner provisional application’s filing date. In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d
`
`1380, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (a patent is prior art as of its earliest filing date that
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`includes the relied-upon disclosure).
`
`Citations to CSCO-1002 and CSCO-1008 refer to the page numbers added
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §42.63(d)(2)(ii). Other citations use the documents’ original page
`
`numbers. Bold underline emphasis in quoted material has been added.
`
`IX.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Challenge #1: Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§103(a) over Aziz in view of Grosner
`
`Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 of the ’430 patent are obvious over Aziz and Grosner.
`
`CSCO-1004, ¶60.
`
`1.
`
`Aziz
`
`Aziz is directed to techniques for providing “[a] Virtual Server Farm
`
`(VSF)… created out of a wide scale computing fabric (‘Computing Grid’) which is
`
`physically constructed once and then logically divided up into VSFs for various
`
`organizations on demand.” CSCO-1006, Abstract.
`
`Aziz’s platform includes a “computing grid 208… composed of a large
`
`number of computing elements CPU1, CPU2,… CPUn.” Id., 6:63-35. “[T]he
`
`computing elements are interconnected to each other through one or more VLAN
`
`switches 204 which can be divided up into Virtual LANs (VLANs).” Id., 6:47-49.
`
`“VLAN switches 204 are coupled to the Internet 106.” Id., 6:47-50. “[L]ong lived
`
`state information is stored separate from the computing elements, on disks DISK1,
`
`22
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`DISK2,... DISKn that are coupled to the computing elements via a Storage Area
`
`Network (SAN) comprising one or more SAN switches 202[.]” Id., 6:40-44.
`
`
`
`CSCO-1006, Figure 2.
`
`Aziz’s platform includes a control plane 206 that “controls the internal
`
`topology of each VSF” and “can take the basic interconnection of computers,
`
`network switches and storage network switches described herein and use them to
`
`create a variety of server farm configurations.” Id., 6:8-13. “These include but are
`
`not limited to, single-tier Web server farms… as well as multi-tier configurations.”
`
`Id., 6:13-15.
`
`
`
`Aziz is analogous art to the ’430 patent because both are in the same field of
`
`endeavor (network computing). CSCO-1004, ¶42.
`
`2. Grosner
`
`23
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`Grosner (CSCO-1007) incorporates by reference the Grosner provisional
`
`application (CSCO-1008) (see CSCO-1007, 1:8-10) and therefore Petitioner cites
`
`to CSCO-1008 to show that the relied-upon disclosures are entitled to the Grosner
`
`provisional application’s filing date.
`
`Grosner describes a “Pirus Box” providing “storage-over-IP” techniques that
`
`“enable servers, storage and network-attached storage (NAS) devices, IP and Fibre
`
`Channel switches on storage-area networks (SAN), WANs or LANs to interoperate
`
`to provide improved storage data transmission across enterprise networks.” CSCO-
`
`1008, p.4, 5. “The Pirus box will route, switch and bridge multiple protocols over a
`
`variety of links, and will support Fibre Channel, Gigabit Ethernet and SCSI
`
`protocols and platforms….” Id., p.7.
`
`Grosner’s Pirus box provides data transmission between servers and the
`
`Internet, including storage disks at a remote site:
`
`24
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`Servers
`
`Servers
`
`Pirus Box
`
`Internet
`
`CSCO-1008, p.65 (annotated); CSCO-1004, ¶46.
`
`Storage Disks at
`Remote Site
`
`Pirus Box
`
`Server
`
`
`
`
`
`CSCO-1008, p.33 (annotated); CSCO-1004, ¶47.
`
`Grosner is analogous art to the ’430 patent because both are in the same field
`
`of endeavor (network computing). CSCO-1004, ¶48.
`
`25
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`3.
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`It would have been obvious for a POSITA to combine the teachings of Aziz
`
`and Grosner because, as explained below, it is merely the combination of prior art
`
`elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. CSCO-1004,
`
`¶49. For the following reasons, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to
`
`combine Aziz’s VLAN switches, SAN switches, and control plane into a single
`
`device—a “control node”—having the functionality claimed in the ’430 patent. Id.
`
`First, Aziz suggests integrating its VLAN and SAN networks, such that the
`
`VLAN connections provide access to SAN storage devices. CSCO-1006, 13:48-57.
`
`Aziz describes that “SANs may be constructed using alternative technologies” and
`
`that “[i]n particular, there are efforts currently underway to construct SANs over IP
`
`networks.” Id., 13:42-47. Aziz further explains how a SAN can operate over
`
`VLAN connections: “When a SAN is constructed by running a protocol like SCSI
`
`over IP over a VLAN capable layer 2 environment, then SAN zones are created by
`
`mapping them to different VLANs.” Id., 13:42-47. Moreover, Aziz also describes
`
`that “Network Attached Storage (NAS) may be used,” and that “[w]ith this option,
`
`different VLANs are used in place of the SAN zones in order to enforce security
`
`and the logical partitioning of the computing grid.” Id., 13:53-57. Accordingly,
`
`Aziz suggests that a POSITA consider combining the functions of a VLAN switch
`
`and a SAN switch into a single switch that provides computing elements with (1)
`
`26
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`access to other computing elements over the VLANs and (2) access to storage
`
`devices. CSCO-1004, ¶50.
`
`Second, a POSITA interested in combining VLAN and SAN technology as
`
`suggested in Aziz would have found it obvious to explore other descriptions of
`
`such technology to provide more details. Id., ¶51. Consistent with Aziz’s
`
`suggestion of “SANS… constructed using alternative technologies” (CSCO-1006,
`
`13:42-43), Grosner teaches providing a single multi-protocol box—called a “Pirus
`
`box”—that provides switching for both VLANs and storage networks. CSCO-
`
`1008, p.24. Grosner describes that its Pirus box “can be configured to join, by way
`
`of example, IP switches with Fibre Channel switches” and that the Pirus box can
`
`provide both “switching with port-based VLAN support” as well as provide access
`
`to “attached disks [that] are accessible via 10/100/1000 switched Ethernet ports[.]”
`
`CSCO-1008, p.7, 24. Accordingly, a POSITA would have recognized from
`
`Grosner’s teachings that a single device would be capable of providing VLAN-
`
`based network access to other computing devices and to storage devices—the same
`
`functionality allegedly provided by the control node of the ’430 patent. CSCO-
`
`1004, ¶51.
`
`Third, Aziz’s describes implementing its SAN using Fibre-Channel and
`
`SCSI devices. CSCO-1006, 13:38-42. A POSITA would have recognized that
`
`having different protocols could cause communication challenges, which are
`
`27
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`addressed by Grosner’s Pirus box. CSCO-1004, ¶52. In particular, Grosner Pirus
`
`box describes specific protocol mediation examples and data structures that would
`
`have provided a POSITA with the useful details for bridging between storage
`
`protocols as Aziz suggests. CSCO-1008, pp.24