`
`Paper No. _____
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`- vs. -
`
`EGENERA, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`———————
`
`Case IPR2017-01341
`U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430
`
`_____________________
`
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01341
`
`As authorized by the Board, Petitioner submits this Reply on the limited
`
`issue of Patent Owner’s argument and cited evidence that “the named inventors
`
`conceived of the claimed subject matter before the priority date of Petitioner’s
`
`cited art.” Paper 8 at 3; see, e.g., Paper 7 at 1. Here, Patent Owner’s purported
`
`evidence of conception fails to provide written description support for every claim
`
`limitation of the ’430 patent as of the September 29, 2000 alleged conception date.
`
`II. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`Patent Owner bears the burden of producing evidence supporting a date of
`
`invention prior to the priority date of Petitioner’s cited art. See, e.g., IPR2016-
`
`00258, Paper 89 at 11 (PTAB 2017) (citing Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
`
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378-90 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The standard for proving
`
`conception is essentially the same as the written description standard under 35
`
`USC § 112. See Vanderkooi v. Hoeschele, 7 USPQ2d 1253, 1255 (Bd. Pat. App. &
`
`Int’f 1987). That is, Patent Owner’s purported evidence of prior conception must
`
`describe every claim limitation using “such descriptive means as words, structures,
`
`figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.” See
`
`Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also
`
`Singh v. Brake, 317 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“conception must encompass all
`
`limitations of the claimed invention”) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`III. PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT A
`SEPTEMBER 29, 2000 CONCEPTION DATE
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01341
`
`Patent Owner alleges that its purported conception date of September 29,
`
`2000 is supported by Exhibit 2001. That document, however, lacks any written
`
`description of multiple claimed features. Petitioner provides examples of the
`
`evidentiary shortcomings of Exhibit 2001 below.
`
`“wherein the at least one control node includes logic to buffer
`A.
`data corresponding to write messages”
`
`Independent claims 3 and 7, addressed in Ground #1, recite the above
`
`language. Patent Owner makes the unsupported assertion that the “Interframe
`
`controller node includes logic (such as I/O server logic) to buffer data.” Paper 7 at
`
`27. Contrary to Patent Owner’s attorney argument, there is no description in
`
`Exhibit 2001 of “logic to buffer data corresponding to write messages” as claimed.
`
`Patent Owner cites to one portion of Exhibit 2001 that refers to “buffers.”
`
`However, that passage describes buffers allocated by an application node (not a
`
`“control node” as in the claim) and makes no mention of “write messages”:
`
`Giganet driver code in the operating system kernel of each applica-
`tion node is responsible for allocating memory for buffers and
`queues, and for conditioning the node’s Giganet network interface
`card to know about the connection and its memory allocation.
`Paper 7 at 29 (citing to EGRA-2001 at 5) (emphasis added).
`Patent Owner asserts that the “control node” of the claim corresponds to the
`
`“Interframe Controller node” of Exhibit 2001, while the claimed “processors”
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`allegedly correspond to “application nodes.” See, e.g., Paper 7 at 9-10. Neither
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01341
`
`Patent Owner nor its expert explain how or why the buffers allocated by an
`
`application node would be used by the Interframe Controller node to buffer write
`
`messages. Nor does Patent Owner or its expert identify any disclosure of “logic”
`
`in the Interframe Controller that would allow the Interframe Controller node to use
`
`a buffer located in an application node for “data corresponding to write messages.”
`
`The remaining cited portions of Exhibit 2001 do not describe “buffers” and
`
`fail to cure the above noted deficiencies. See, e.g., Paper 7 at 27-30.
`
`B.
`
`“software commands specifying (i) a number of processors”
`
`All of the independent claims recite the above language. Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response asserts that the claimed software commands are received
`
`“from an Interframe administrator and Interframe controller node[.]” Paper 7 at 16.
`
`However, the cited portions of Exhibit 2001 that refer to an “administrator” and the
`
`“Interframe controller nodes” do not describe any “software commands” or
`
`“specifying (i) a number of processors.” For example, Exhibit 2001 explains that:
`
`that software creates and activates
`An administrator using
`configuration description files that instruct the I/O server logic
`running on the Interframe controller nodes as to what devices to
`simulate for each application node.
`Paper 7 at 17-18 (citing EGRA-2001 at 13).
`
`The cited portion does not describe how its “software creates and activates
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`configuration description files,” nor does it describe how, or whether, such “confi-
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01341
`
`guration description files” would “specify[] (i) a number of processors.” Rather,
`
`the cited portion indicates that the “configuration description” provides instruction
`
`“as to what devices to simulate for each application node.” Determining devices to
`
`simulate on an application node does not specify a number of application nodes
`
`(i.e., the components Patent Owner alleges are the claimed “processors”).
`
`The other cited portions pertain to “allow[ing] simulated application node
`
`ports to be cabled,” “changing a node’s configuration,” “simulat[ing] hard drives
`
`on specific application nodes,” and “simulat[ing] Ethernet interfaces[.]” Paper 7 at
`
`17-20. None of these features provide written description support for “software
`
`commands specifying (i) a number of processors.”
`
`“said at least one control node including logic to modify said
`C.
`received messages to transmit said modified messages to the external
`communication network and to the external storage network”
`
`Independent claims 1, 3, and 4 recite the above language and independent
`
`claims 5, 8, and 8 recite similar features. Exhibit 2001 states, in the most
`
`potentially relevant portion, that for “a disk access request … I/O server logic in
`
`the Interframe controller node is aware of which node sent the request and is able
`
`to translate that node’s device number into the proper actual partition[.]” Paper 7 at
`
`16 (citing to EGRA-2001 at 2-3). At most, this “disk access request” would be sent
`
`to “the external storage network.” There is no support in the cited portion for
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`transmitting a “disk access request” to “the external communication network.”
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01341
`
`Patent Owner also cites to portions describing “routing” of “serial console
`
`traffic.” Paper 7 at 16 (citing EGRA-2001 at 2-3). However, the claims also require
`
`that “said received messages are addressed to the external communication net-
`
`work and to the external storage network.” Exhibit 2001 indicates that the “serial
`
`console traffic” is simply “a serial stream of ASCII characters[.]” See EGRA-2001
`
`at 11. There is no suggestion in the cited portions that the “serial console traffic,”
`
`as received by the Interframe Controller, is addressed to either an external
`
`communication network or an external storage network. Accordingly, the “serial
`
`console traffic” is not relevant to the limitations regarding “received messages.”
`
`In summary, none of Patent Owner’s citations from Exhibit 2001
`
`demonstrate conception of “transmit[ting] said modified messages to the external
`
`communication network,” much less the claimed “logic to modify said received
`
`messages to transmit said modified messages to the external communication
`
`network and to the external storage network.”
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Patent Owner fails to demonstrate conception before Petitioner’s prior art.
`
`Date: September 8, 2017
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs, Reg. # 32,271
`Counsel for Petitioner Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01341
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a), this is to certify that service
`
`was made on Patent Owner as detailed below:
`
`Date of service September 8, 2017
`
`Manner of service Electronic Mail to: cbovenkamp@mckoolsmith.com;
`jcampbell@mckoolsmith.com;
`Egenera_IPR@McKoolSmith.com
`
`Documents served Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Christopher Bovenkamp
`John Campbell
`McKOOL SMITH P.C.
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`Persons served
`
`
`
`
`By: /David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs, Reg. # 32,271
`Counsel for Petitioner Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
