In The United States Court of Appeals ... - Crossroads Systems · 9/21/2016 · Suite 900 ....

NO. 16-2017, -2026, -2027

In The

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., QUANTUM CORP., ORACLE CORPORATION, DOT HILL SYSTEMS CORPORATION,

Appellees

From the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Nos. IPR2014-01226, IPR2015-00825, IPR2015‐00852, IPR2015‐00854,

IPR2014‐01463, and IPR2014‐01544

APPELLEES’ CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE BRIEF

David L. McCombs Debra J. McComas Andrew S. Ehmke Scott T. Jarratt HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (972) 739-8636 Facsimile: (972) 692-9116 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Appellees Cisco Systems, Inc. and Quantum Corp. (additional counsel on next page)

Jared Bobrow WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Pkwy. Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 [email protected] Counsel for Appellee Oracle Corporation

Orion Armon Peter J. Sauer COOLEY LLP 380 Interlocken Crescent Suite 900 Broomfield, CO 80021-8023 Telephone: (720) 566-4000 Facsimile: (720) 566-4099 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Appellee Dot Hill Systems Corp.

Case: 16-2017 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 09/21/2016

Matthew C. Gaudet DUANE MORRIS LLP 1075 Peachtree St. NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 253-6902 Facsimile: (404) 393-1908 [email protected]

Joseph A. Powers DUANE MORRIS LLP 30 S. 17th St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 979-1842 Facsimile: (215) 689-3797 [email protected]

Clement S. Roberts DURIE TANGRI LLP 217 Leidesdorff St. San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 362-6666 Facsimile: (415) 236-6300 [email protected]

Counsel for Appellees Cisco Systems, Inc. and Quantum Corp.


CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST FOR CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

Counsel for Appellee Cisco Systems, Inc. certifies the following:

1. The full name of every party represented by me is:

Cisco Systems, Inc. and Quantum Corporation

2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real party in interest) represented by me is:

None

3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more of the stock of the party represented by me are:

None

4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court are:

Haynes and Boone LLP; David McCombs, Andrew Ehmke, Scott T. Jarratt, Debra J. McComas Duane Morris LLP; Matthew C. Gaudet, Joseph A. Powers

September 21, 2016 /s/ David L. McCombs David L. McCombs

i


CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST FOR QUANTUM CORPORATION

Counsel for Appellee Quantum Corporation certifies the following:


Cisco Systems, Inc. and Quantum Corporation


None


None


Haynes and Boone LLP; David McCombs, Andrew Ehmke, Scott Jarratt, Debra J. McComas Durie Tangri LLP; Clement S. Roberts

September 21, 2016 /s/ David L. McCombs David L. McCombs

ii


CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST FOR ORACLE CORPORATION

Counsel for Appellee Oracle Corporation certifies the following:


Oracle Corporation


None


None


Greg H. Gardella, Scott A. McKeown (Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP) Mollybeth R. Kocialski (Oracle Corporation) Jared Bobrow, Derek C. Walter, Aaron Y. Huang (Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP)

September 21, 2016 /s/ Jared Bobrow Jared Bobrow

iii


CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST FOR DOT HILL SYSTEMS CORP.

Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rules 27(a)(7) and 47.4(a), counsel for Appellee Dot Hill Systems Corp. hereby certifies the following:

1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:

Dot Hill Systems Corp.

2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real party in interest) represented by us is: None

3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by us are:

Dot Hill Systems Corp. is a Delaware corporation that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Seagate HDD Cayman, an exempted company with limited liability organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands.

Seagate HDD Cayman is a wholly owned subsidiary of Seagate Technology (Cayman Islands) an exempted company with limited liability organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands.

Seagate Technology (Cayman Islands) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Seagate Technology Public Limited Company, a publicly traded company traded under the symbol STX.

4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus now represented by us in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court are:

Cooley LLP; Orion Armon, Peter J. Sauer.

September 21, 2016

/s/ Orion Armon Orion Armon

iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST FOR CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. ............................. i

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST FOR QUANTUM CORPORATION ................... ii

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST FOR ORACLE CORPORATION ...................... iii

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST FOR DOT HILL SYSTEMS CORP. .................. iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... v

STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ..................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 2

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 5

I. The Mapping Limitation of the ’035, ’041, and ’147 Patents ......................... 5

II. The Prior Art ..................................................................................................11

A. The CRD-5500 User’s Manual ...........................................................11

B. HP Journal ...........................................................................................13

III. The Board Found That Two Different Configurations of the Prior Art Teach the Claimed Mapping Functionality ....................................15

A. The “Channel-Number Mapping” Configuration ...............................16

B. The “FC-Address Mapping” Configuration ........................................18

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................20

STANDARD OF REVIEW .....................................................................................21

ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................22

I. The Board’s Decision Should Not Be Disturbed Because Crossroads Disputes Only One of the Two Bases Underpinning the Board’s Finding of Unpatentability. ........................................................22

v


A. Crossroads Is Incorrect That the Board Relied Only on the CRD Manual for the Mapping Limitation ....................................23

B. Crossroads Has Committed a Case-Dispositive Waiver on Appeal. ...........................................................................................31

1. Crossroads Waived Any Challenge to the Conclusion That “Fibre Channel Addressing” Meets the Mapping Limitation..................................................32

2. Crossroads’ Waiver Also Applies to the Dependent Claims. ......................................................................................37

C. Crossroads’ Insular Attack on the CRD Manual Is Insufficient to Show Non-obviousness when the Board Relied on a Combination of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal. ................................................................................................40

II. The Board Did Not Err in Finding All Claims of the Patents Obvious Over the Cited Prior Art. .................................................................43

A. The Board’s Construction of the Mapping Limitation Merely Requires that the “Map” with a “Representation of Devices” Create a Path. ...................................................................44

B. Crossroads Improperly Imports Limitations into the Board’s Construction. ..........................................................................48

C. The Board Did Not Expand its Construction When Determining that the Channel-Oriented Approach of the CRD Manual Teaches the Mapping Limitation. .................................51

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER .............................................................................60

ECF CERTIFICATION ...........................................................................................62

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................62

vi


TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)

Cases

Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 30

In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 22

Becton Dickinson & Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d 792 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ............................................................................ 31

Carbino v. West, 168 F.3d 32 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................ 31, 33, 37, 50

In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................... 23, 30, 31, 39

Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .................................................................................. 21, 44

Dell v. Acceleron LLC, 818 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 51

Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 36

Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, 812 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 22

In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 22

In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) .......................................................................... 40, 42

Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 21

Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 30

vii


Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 34

Respironics, Inc. v. Zoll Med. Corp., 2015-1485, 2016 WL 4056094 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2016) .................................. 48

In re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................... 22, 23

Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) .................................................................................. 23, 30, 39 SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc.,

358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...................................................................... 48, 49

Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 23, 30

Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 45

Veritas Techs. LLC, v. Veeam Software Corp., No. 2015-1894, 2016 WL 4525278 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2016) .................... 45, 48

In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., No. 2015-1050, 2016 WL 4191193 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2016) .....................passim

Other Authorities

37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ......................................................................................... 21, 44

viii


STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES

No other appeal in or from this case has been before either this Court or any

other appellate court. Counsel is aware of the following cases this Court’s decision

will directly affect: Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., No. 1:13‐cv‐895

(W.D. Tex. filed Oct. 7, 2013); Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Dot Hill Systems

Corp., No. 1:13‐cv‐800 (W.D. Tex. filed Sept. 11, 2013); Crossroads Systems, Inc.

v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 1:14‐cv‐148 (W.D. Tex. filed Feb. 18, 2014);

Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Netapp, Inc., No. 1:14‐cv‐149 (W.D. Tex. filed Feb.

18, 2014); Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Quantum Corp., No. 1:14‐cv‐150 (filed Feb.

18, 2014).

Counsel is also aware of the following consolidated appeals, currently

pending before this Court, which concern the patents on appeal here and related

patents: Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., Nos. 2016‐1930, ‐1931 (Fed.

Cir. consolidated April 28, 2016).

1


STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. The Board found all claims of three related patents obvious over a

combination of the CRD-5500 User’s Manual and HP Journal, along with

other secondary references. In its analysis, the Board made findings

regarding two configurations of the combination that teach the “mapping”

limitation. Should the Board’s holding of unpatentability be affirmed when

Crossroads challenges only one of the two configurations on appeal?

2. The Board construed the “mapping” limitation to mean:

To create a path from a device on one side of the storage

router to a device on the other side of the router. A “map”

contains a representation of devices on each side of the storage

router, so that when a device on one side of the storage router

wants to communicate with a device on the other side of the

storage router, the storage router can connect the devices.

This construction is unchallenged. Should the Board’s construction be

interpreted so narrowly as to exclude the CRD Manual’s disclosure of a map

that creates a path between devices using channel numbers?

2


INTRODUCTION

This appeal arises from IPR proceedings in which the Board held

unpatentable all claims of three related patents. The Court should affirm because

(i) Crossroads does not challenge a case-dispositive finding by the Board and

(ii) the Board properly found that the prior art is within the scope of the

unchallenged claim construction.

First, with respect to the claimed “mapping,” Crossroads disputes only one

of the two independent bases underpinning the Board’s finding that the prior art

discloses this limitation. The Board found that each of two configurations of the

prior art combination independently teaches the claimed mapping: (i) a

configuration that maps using channel numbers; and (ii) a configuration that maps

using Fibre Channel addressing. Crossroads challenges only the first configuration

and is silent as to the merits of the second configuration. Because Crossroads has

not challenged the Board’s finding that the second configuration teaches the

claimed mapping functionality, Crossroads’ appeal is deficient on its face. For this

reason alone, this Court should not disturb the Board’s conclusion of

unpatentability.

Second, even if this Court decides to examine the merits of Crossroads’

argument with respect to the first configuration, the Board should be affirmed

based on the undisputed evidence and uncontested claim construction. Crossroads’

3


arguments regarding the first configuration are predicated on an attempt to “re-

interpret” the construction by reading in limitations found in various embodiments

in the specification. This it cannot do.

Crossroads’ arguments are legally insufficient to warrant reversal both

because (i) the Board’s decision contains an independent basis for affirmance that

Crossroads does not challenge and (ii) the arguments Crossroads does make are

predicated on an attempt to improperly narrow an unchallenged claim construction

by reading in embodiments from the specification in contradiction of the

underlying trial record. The Court should therefore affirm the Board’s finding of

unpatentability.

4


STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I. The Mapping Limitation of the ’035, ’041, and ’147 Patents

The patents at issue in this appeal are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,425,035 (Appx198-

211), 7,934,041 (Appx8044-8058), and 7,051,147 (Appx19691-19704) (the

“Patents”).1 These patents generally describe a “storage router” that routes storage

requests and data between workstations connected to one side of the storage router

and storage devices connected to the other side of the storage router. See ’147

Patent, 4:10-9:22, Appx19699-19702. Figure 3 of the ’147 Patent, reproduced

below, illustrates one embodiment disclosed in the specification:

Id. at Fig. 3, Appx19696.

1 For the Court’s convenience, this brief cites only to the ’147 Patent given that the written description and figures are identical across all the Patents.

5


The specification explains that the storage router shown in Fig. 3 maps

storage on one side of the router to workstations on the other side of the router—

for example, “Workstation A Storage” is mapped to “Workstation A.” Id. at 4:32-

40, Appx19699. The storage router controls access to the storage devices according

to the mapping. Id., Appx19699.

Claim 21 of the ’147 Patent was selected by Crossroads as a “representative”

claim and provides as follows (with bolding added):

21. A system for providing virtual local storage on remote storage devices, comprising:

a first controller operable to connect to and interface with a first transport medium operable according to a Fibre Channel protocol;

a second controller operable to connect to and interface with a second transport medium operable according to the Fibre Channel protocol;

at least one device connected to the first transport medium; at least one storage device connected to the second

transport medium; and an access control device coupled to the first controller and

the second controller, the access control device operable to: map between the at least one device and a storage

space on the at least one storage device; and control access from the at least one device to the at least

one storage device using native low level, block protocol in accordance with the map.

’147 Patent, 11:48-67, Appx19703. The only limitation at issue in this appeal is the

“map” limitation: “map between the at least one device and a storage space on the

at least one storage device.”

6


Throughout its Opening Brief, Crossroads refers to the mapping recited in

the map limitation as “device-to-device mapping.” See, e.g., Crossroads’ Opening

Brief (“Crds. OBr.”) at 4-8. It is important to note, however, that the claim

language and specification are both silent as to how such “mapping” is performed.

For example, while Figure 3 (the figure relied upon by Crossroads) illustrates the

allocation of storage to workstation devices, the description of the figure notes that

such allocation can be accomplished “through the use of mapping tables or other

mapping techniques.” ’147 Patent, 4:28-29, Appx19699 (emphasis added). And,

additional references to “mapping tables” in the specification are likewise abstract

and non-limiting. See, e.g., id. at 5:7-9, Appx19700 (“To accomplish this function,

storage router 56 can include routing tables and security controls that define

storage allocation for each workstation 58.”), 9:11-14, Appx19702 (“The storage

router can use tables to map, for each initiator, what storage access is available and

what partition is being addressed by a particular request.”).

Further, the specification provides examples of mapping with intermediate

identifiers that create a communication path between the host device and the

storage device. For example, when a host device is connected to the storage router

via a Fibre Channel Arbitrated Loop, the specification describes mapping with an

Arbitrated Loop Physical Address (AL_PA) that identifies a port on the loop to

which the host device can be connected. ’147 Patent, 8:1-10, Appx19701 (“Fibre

7


Channel devices within a fabric are addressed by a unique port identifier.”); see

also Levy Depo., 87:24-88:6, Appx26341-26342. The AL_PA identifier creates a

communication path between the storage router and the host device associated with

the port. Levy Depo., 123:15-24, Appx26377, 87:24-88:6, Appx26341-26342,

90:4-13, Appx26344. Crossroads’ expert explained that the AL_PA identifier and

the other identifier examples in the specification2 can serve as representations of

devices in the map because they are “sufficient to identify a host for the purpose of

the mapping.” Id. at 129:16-17, Appx26383. In other words, although the AL_PA

identifier (and the SCSI ID) described in the specification are intermediate

identifiers not immutably tied to a particular host device, they can nevertheless

serve as representations of host devices in the map because they create a

communication path for the purposes of mapping.

The Board relied upon the above intrinsic and extrinsic evidence to construe

the mapping limitation. Specifically, the Board held that the broadest reasonable

construction of “map between the at least one device and a storage space on the at

least one storage device” is:

2 The specification also provides that a SCSI ID may represent a device in the map. ’147 Patent 6:57-61, Appx19700. Like the AL_PA identifier, the SCSI ID is an intermediate identifier. SCSI-2 Standard, 3-5, Appx24500-24502 (explaining that a SCSI ID is assigned to a “host adapter” that “connects between a host system and the SCSI bus”). A SCSI ID creates a communication path between the storage router and the host associated with the host adapter. Levy Depo., 123:15-24, Appx26377.

8


To create a path from a device on one side of the storage router

to a device on the other side of the router. A “map” contains a

representation of devices on each side of the storage router, so

that when a device on one side of the storage router wants to

communicate with a device on the other side of the storage

router, the storage router can connect the devices.

IPR1226 Dec. 10, Appx10; IPR1463 Dec. 10, Appx49; IPR1544 Dec. 8, Appx89.

On appeal, Crossroads does not contest the wording of this construction; nor does

it contest any of the evidence relied upon by the Board in arriving at the

construction. Crds. OBr. 21.

Notably, the words of the construction simply require the creation of a path

with some sort of “map” (e.g., a basic table) containing a “representation” of the

devices on each side of the storage router. It does not require that any specific type

of “representation” be used, only that a “representation” (whatever it is) be

sufficient to allow the storage router to “connect the devices” on either side of it.

In arriving at its construction, the Board rejected Crossroads’ arguments that

the map must identify the “precise” host to which storage has been allocated,

noting that “Patent Owner does not identify any disclosure in the ’035 Patent’s

specification that clearly disavows mapping to a device indirectly, or mapping to a

device via an intermediate identifier.” IPR1226 Dec. 9, Appx9; IPR1463 Dec. 9,

Appx48 (same); IPR1544 Dec. 7, Appx88 (same). The Board observed that the

9


Patents instead “specifically discuss[] mapping with identifiers that are not

immutable. For example, the specification discusses addressing devices on an FC

loop using an AL_PA (arbitrated loop physical address) identifier.” Id., Appx9,

Appx48, Appx88. Based on the disclosure in the specification and “testimony by

Patent Owner’s proffered expert,” the Board concluded that:

For the reasons above, we are not persuaded that the broadest

reasonable interpretation of the “map” limitations mandates

mapping directly or immutably to a host device itself, or

excludes mapping to devices using intermediate identifiers.

IPR1226 Dec. 9-10, Appx9-10; IPR1463 Dec. 9-10, Appx48-49; IPR1544 Dec. 7-

8, Appx88-89.

In sum, while the specification generally describes mapping a storage device

to a particular workstation device (which Crossroads calls “device-to-device”

mapping), there is nothing in that description that limits such mapping to a specific

implementation. See ’147 Patent, 4:28-29, Appx19699 (stating only that the

mapping can be implemented using non-specific “mapping techniques”). And, the

examples in the specification of identifiers that can represent host devices in the

map (e.g., AL_PA) are intermediate identifiers that create a communication path

between the host devices and storage.

10


II. The Prior Art

A. The CRD-5500 User’s Manual

The CRD-5500 User’s Manual describes a SCSI RAID Controller (i.e.,

storage router) that routes storage requests and data between host devices and

storage devices attached to opposite sides of the controller. See CRD-5500 User’s

Manual (“CRD Manual”), 1-1–1-4, Appx446-449. The hosts are attached to the

controller via host channels, and, in the configuration illustrated in Fig. 1-2, there

is one host per host channel:

CRD Manual 1-3, Appx448.

Just like the claimed storage router, the controller of the CRD Manual

includes a mapping feature called “Host LUN Mapping” that allocates storage on

one side of the controller to particular hosts on the other side of the controller. Id.

11


at 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 4-5, Appx446-448, Appx481. While Crossroads is correct that the

hosts are connected to the CRD-5500 via host channels, the CRD Manual

explicitly teaches that its system maps storage (called “redundancy groups”) to

“particular” hosts, not merely to the physical channels connecting the hosts. See,

e.g., CRD Manual 1-2, Appx447 (“By using the controller’s Host LUN Mapping

feature, you can assign redundancy groups to a particular host.”) (emphasis

added); id. at 1-1, Appx446 (“The controller’s Host LUN Mapping feature makes

it possible to map RAID sets differently to each host.”) (emphasis added). That is,

the CRD Manual teaches that its mapping is between storage devices and host

devices—i.e., a device-to-device mapping.

With respect to how this device-to-device mapping is implemented, the CRD

Manual teaches using an intermediate identifier in the Host LUN Mapping to

create a communication path between the host device and the storage assigned to

that host device. Specifically, each mapping table of the Host LUN Mapping

includes a channel number that represents the host device coupled to that channel,

thereby allowing storage (i.e., one or more redundancy groups) to be mapped to

that particular host device:

12


Id. at 4-5, Appx481 (annotated) (originally found in IPR1226 Pet. Rep. at 12,

Appx5099; IPR1463 Pet. Rep. at 12, Appx15153; IPR1544 Pet. Rep. at 12,

Appx26207). In the figure from the CRD Manual annotated above, the channel

number “Channel 0” represents the “particular” host device to which the

redundancy groups 0, 1, 5, etc. are mapped.

Once storage on a storage device has been mapped to a particular host via

the channel number associated with the host, the host can communicate with the

storage device. CRD Manual, 1-1, 1-4, 2-1, 2-4, Appx446, Appx448, Appx458,

Appx461. The channel number in the map is an intermediate identifier that creates

a communication path between the host device and a storage device.

B. HP Journal

Volume 47, issue 5 of the Hewlett-Packard Journal (“HP Journal”) describes

the features, functionality, and advantages of the Fibre Channel communication

protocol. See HP Journal, 5, 94-112, Appx537, Appx626-644. The Board

Representation of the host

Mapping for the “HOST” Represented by “Channel 0”

Storage mapped to host represented by “Channel 0”

13


combined the teachings of the HP Journal with those of the CRD Manual to find

the claims of the Patents obvious. See IPR1226 Dec. 37, Appx37; IPR1463 Dec.

40, Appx79; IPR1544 Dec. 9, Appx90. Despite this, Crossroads’ Opening Brief

fails to address the Board’s fact findings with respect to the teachings of the HP

Journal and, more importantly, fails to address the merits of the Board’s reliance

on such teachings in its analysis of the mapping limitation.

Of particular relevance is the HP Journal’s teachings regarding Fibre

Channel arbitrated loops, a type of communication link to which multiple

computing devices may be connected, as shown in Fig. 3 of the HP Journal

reproduced below. See HP Journal 94-96, 101, Appx626-628, Appx633.

Id. at 96, Appx628. Unchallenged evidence in the record establishes that each

computing device on an arbitrated loop is uniquely identified, for example, by an

AL_PA (arbitrated loop physical address)—the very example from the

14


specification of the Patents discussed above. Levy Depo., 87:24-88:6, Appx26341-

26342 (cited in IPR1226 Pet. Reply 5, Appx5092); see also Crds. OBr. at 32 (“The

patents also describe communicating with certain Fibre Channel devices by using

the device’s ‘unique port identifier’ or its ‘loop‐unique ID (AL_PA).’”). The Board

relied on the “FC addressing capabilities taught by the HP Journal” in arriving at

its ultimate conclusion that the combination of the CRD Manual and HP Journal

renders obvious all claims of the Patents at issue. See IPR1226 Dec. 22, Appx22;

IPR1463 Dec. 22, Appx61; IPR1544 Dec. 16, Appx97.

III. The Board Found That Two Different Configurations of the Prior Art Teach the Claimed Mapping Functionality

In the three Final Decisions, the Board followed an identifiable and proper

path to arrive at its conclusion that all claims of the Patents are unpatentable. First,

the Board determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the

CRD Manual and HP Journal. See IPR1226 Dec. 12-29, Appx12-29; IPR1463

Dec. 12-32, Appx51-71; IPR1544 Dec. 9-22, Appx90-103. Second, when applying

the combination to the mapping limitation at issue in this appeal, the Board made

findings that two configurations render obvious the claimed mapping: (i) a

configuration in which the channel numbers of the CRD Manual are used to

represent devices in the mapping, and (ii) a configuration in which the Fibre

Channel addressing of the HP Journal is used to represent devices in the

mapping—in lieu of the channel numbers of the CRD Manual. See IPR1226 Dec.

15


20-22, Appx20-22; IPR1463 Dec. 20-22, Appx59-61; IPR1544 Dec. 15-17,

Appx96-98.

A. The “Channel-Number Mapping” Configuration

This first configuration is the only configuration addressed in Crossroads’

Opening Brief. Specifically, the Board held that the configuration shown in Figure

1-2 of the CRD Manual, reproduced below, teaches the mapping limitation.

CRD Manual 1-3, Appx448. In particular, the Board found that when “each host

channel is dedicated to a single host . . . mapping to a host channel is tantamount to

mapping to a particular host.” IPR1226 Dec. 20, Appx20; IPR1463 Dec. 20,

Appx59; IPR1544 Dec. 15, Appx96. In other words, in the CRD Manual’s Host

LUN Mapping, the channel number of a host channel represents the host connected

16


to that channel. This is illustrated in the annotated figure below, to which the

Board cited:

CRD Manual at 4-5, Appx481 (annotated) (originally found in IPR1226 Pet. Rep.

at 12, Appx5099; IPR1463 Pet. Rep. at 12, Appx15153; IPR1544 Pet. Rep. at 12,

Appx26207) (cited by Board at IPR1226 Dec. 20, Appx20; IPR1463 Dec. 20,

Appx59; IPR1544 Dec. 15, Appx96). The Board supported its conclusion with the

evidence that the CRD Manual “explicitly refers to mapping to hosts and host

channels interchangeably.” IPR1226 Dec. 20, Appx20 (citing to CRD Manual at 1-

1, Appx446 (“The controller’s Host LUN Mapping feature makes it possible to

map RAID sets differently to each host.”)); IPR1463 Dec. 20, Appx59 (same);

IPR1544 Dec. 15, Appx96 (same). Further, the Board expressly found that the

channel number of the CRD Manual teaches an identifier of a host device. See,

e.g., IPR1463 Dec. 26, Appx65 (“We are persuaded that the disclosures of channel

numbers in the CRD Manual . . . teach unique identifiers.”).




17


B. The “FC-Address Mapping” Configuration

Second, the Board found that a configuration that uses Fibre Channel

arbitrated loops and the Fibre Channel addressing taught in the HP Journal renders

obvious the mapping limitation. Specifically, the Board looked to the “record as a

whole” and found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would map storage to

particular hosts on a Fibre Channel loop using the Fibre Channel addressing taught

in the HP Journal in lieu of the channel numbers taught in the CRD Manual:

As noted in the Petition (Pet. 20-21), the HP Journal provides

detailed disclosures on the implementation of FC arbitrated

loops, including configurations with multiple host devices. See

Pet. Reply 13-20; Ex. 1006, 100-111. The record as a whole

supports Petitioners’ contention that a person of ordinary skill

would have been able to combine the teachings of the CRD

Manual and the HP Journal to arrive at a system utilizing FC

loops, which maps redundancy groups to particular hosts and

implements access controls as taught by the CRD Manual, but

applying FC addressing capabilities taught by the HP Journal

in lieu of the host channel-based implementation of the CRD

Manual. See Pet. Reply 13–20; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56–61.

IPR1226 Dec. 21-22, Appx21-22; IPR1463 Dec. 21-22, Appx60-61; IPR1544 Dec.

16-17, Appx97-98 (emphasis added). The Board referenced this “FC-address

mapping” configuration throughout the Final Decisions, noting that configuration

utilizes the AL_PA identifier in the mapping:

18


• “As discussed above, we find this explanation of the combination

using AL_PA in mapping persuasive . . . .”

IPR1226 Dec. 23, Appx23; IPR1463 Dec. 23, Appx62 (emphasis added).

• “We are persuaded that the . . . use of a FC AL_PA in the HP

Journal teach unique identifiers.”

IPR1463 Dec. 26, Appx65 (emphasis added).

Accordingly, in its Final Decisions, the Board expressly made findings

regarding two configurations of the same combination of the CRD Manual and HP

Journal that teach the mapping limitation: (i) the “channel-number mapping”

configuration in which a channel number represents a device; and (ii) the “FC-

address mapping” configuration in which the Fibre Channel AL_PA identifier

represents a device. See, e.g., IPR1463 Dec. 26, Appx65 (“We are persuaded that

the disclosures of channel numbers in the CRD Manual and the use of a FC

AL_PA in the HP Journal teach unique identifiers.”) (emphasis added). Of critical

importance to this appeal, Crossroads’ Opening Brief does not dispute or recognize

the Board’s finding that the “FC-address mapping” configuration teaches the map

limitation. Instead, Crossroads asserts that the Board did not make any findings

relating to the mapping functionality based on the HP Journal. Crds. OBr. at 18

n.10. Crossroads is plainly incorrect.

19


SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

In the proceedings below, the Board made findings that two configurations

of the same combination of the CRD Manual and HP Journal meet the mapping

limitation. Specifically, the mapping limitation is rendered obvious by (i) a

configuration that maps storage to hosts using the channel numbers of the CRD

Manual (“channel-number mapping”), and (ii) a configuration of the combination

that maps storage to hosts using the Fibre Channel addressing of the HP Journal

(in lieu of the CRD Manual’s channel numbers) (“FC-address mapping”).

Crossroads’ Opening Brief solely challenges the merits of the Board’s finding that

the CRD Manual’s channels can be “representations” of devices under the broadest

reasonable interpretation, and neither addresses nor disputes the Board’s second

finding that Fibre Channel identifiers (known as an “AL_PA”) taught by the HP

Journal can similarly serve as “representations” of the claimed devices. And, far

from contesting the Board’s finding, Crossroads’ Opening Brief acknowledges that

mapping to a host device using Fibre Channel identifiers (e.g., an AL_PA) falls

within the scope of the claimed mapping functionality.

Therefore, because Crossroads does not challenge the fact findings or legal

conclusion that the combined teachings of the CRD Manual and HP Journal render

obvious the mapping functionality, Crossroads has waived any challenge to such

findings and conclusion, and its appeal fails.

20


As such, the Court need not reach Crossroads’ substantive arguments

regarding the CRD Manual to affirm. Nevertheless, the record establishes that the

Board did not err in finding the mapping limitation obvious in view of the channel-

oriented disclosure of the CRD Manual. Specifically, the plain language of the

Board’s undisputed claim construction indicates that a “representation” of a device

in a map simply is used to create a communication path between the device and a

storage device. Nothing in the specification disclaims the use of channel numbers

in the mapping as long as they create a communication path between the devices

and storage. In fact, the specification is explicit that the mapping of storage to

devices can be accomplished through any number of non-specific “mapping

techniques.” As such, the Board was correct to determine that the configuration

shown in Fig. 1-2 of the CRD Manual teaches the mapping limitation.

The Court should therefore uphold the Board’s conclusion that all claims of

the Patents are unpatentable.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Board construes a patent claim according to “its broadest reasonable

construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37

C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2136

(2016). The Court reviews the Board’s ultimate claim constructions de novo and its

underlying factual determinations for substantial evidence. Microsoft Corp. v.

21


Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

In reviewing obviousness, the Court reviews the Board’s factual findings for

substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v.

Covidien LP, 812 F.3d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing In re Baxter Int’l, Inc.,

678 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Substantial evidence is “such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”

In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

ARGUMENT

I. The Board’s Decision Should Not Be Disturbed Because Crossroads Disputes Only One of the Two Bases Underpinning the Board’s Finding of Unpatentability.

In each Final Decision, the Board made two independent findings underlying

its conclusion that the mapping limitation is taught by the prior art. With respect to

its finding that the “FC-address mapping” configuration meets the mapping

limitation, the Board provided an administrative record showing the evidence on

which the finding is based and its reasoning in arriving at that finding. See In re

Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Because Crossroads does not

contest the “FC-address mapping” finding, the Court should not disturb the holding

of unpatentability. See In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., No. 2015-1050, 2016 WL

4191193, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2016). Further, to the extent Crossroads argues

that the Board did not rely on the “FC-address mapping” finding to arrive at its

22


conclusion of obviousness, the Supreme Court counsels that the Board’s decision

should nevertheless be affirmed based on such finding because there are no

disputed fact issues. See Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp., 318

U.S. 80, 88 (1943); In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

A. Crossroads Is Incorrect That the Board Relied Only on the CRD Manual for the Mapping Limitation

Crossroads’ Opening Brief is exclusively directed to discounting the

channel-oriented disclosure in the CRD Manual based upon the belief that “[t]he

Board relied only on the Manual for the ‘device-oriented mapping’ requirements.”

Crds. OBr. at 18 n.10. This belief is misplaced.

As discussed above, the Board found that the mapping limitation was taught

not only by the channel numbers of the CRD Manual but also by the Fibre Channel

addressing of the HP Journal. The Board’s conclusions with respect to the Fibre

Channel addressing of the HP Journal constitute an agency finding that is

supported by the record as a whole and reasoned explanation. See Synopsys, Inc. v.

Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that the

Board is obligated to “provide an administrative record showing the evidence on

which the findings are based, accompanied by the agency’s reasoning in reaching

its conclusions.”) (citing In re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d at 1342).

Here, after construing the mapping limitation, the Board found that the CRD

Manual and HP Journal are properly combinable and that the mapping limitation

23


is obvious when applying that combination to the claims. See IPR1226 Dec. 7-29,

Appx7-29; IPR1463 Dec. 7-32, Appx46-71; IPR1544 Dec. 5-22, Appx86-103.

When applying the teachings of the combination, the Board addressed Crossroads’

rebuttal arguments and analyzed the “record as a whole” to find that a person of

ordinary skill would apply the “FC addressing capabilities taught by the HP

Journal in lieu of the host channel-based implementation of the CRD Manual” to

“arrive at a system utilizing FC loops, which maps redundancy groups to

particular hosts.” IPR1226 Dec. 22, Appx22; IPR1463 Dec. 21-22, Appx60-61;

IPR1544 Dec. 16-17, Appx97-98 (emphasis added).

To arrive at this finding, the Board first established an evidentiary

foundation by citing to the relevant factual teachings of the HP Journal. Notably,

the Board found “the HP Journal provides detailed disclosures on the

implementation of FC arbitrated loops, including configurations with multiple host

devices.” IPR1226 Dec. 21-22, Appx21-22; IPR1463 Dec. 21-22, 27 Appx60-61,

Appx66; IPR1544 Dec. 16-17, Appx97-98. And, with respect to the addressability

of host devices on a Fibre Channel arbitrated loop, it found that “the HP Journal

discusses various advantages of FC over SCSI as a transport medium technology,

including advantages in bandwidth and addressability.” IPR1226 Dec. 15, Appx15;

IPR1463 Dec. 15, Appx54; IPR1544 Dec. 10, Appx91. Even more, it found that

24


there is “disclosure in the HP Journal of using an AL_PA on a FC.” IPR1463 Dec.

27, Appx66. All of these factual findings are uncontested in this appeal.

The Board found additional evidentiary support for the “FC-address

mapping” configuration in Petitioners’ Reply and Appellees’ expert declaration.

IPR1226 Dec. 22, Appx22 (citing to “Pet. Reply 13-20; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56-61”);

IPR1463 Dec. 22, Appx61 (same); IPR1544 Dec. 17, Appx98 (same). The

following cited pages of Petitioners’ Reply set forth evidence that a person of

ordinary skill in the art would know how to physically combine the CRD Manual

and HP Journal, know how such a combination would identify particular hosts on

a Fibre Channel arbitrated loop, and would be able to create data structures to map

storage to particular hosts:

To the extent the CRD-5500 Manual does not disclose multiple

hosts on the same transport medium, the HP Journal teaches

connecting multiple hosts to a Fibre Channel arbitrated loop.

CQ-1006, pp. 95-96. And, as set forth in the Petition, one of

ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine

the teachings of the CRD-5500 Manual and HP Journal to

produce the obvious, beneficial, and predictable result of

utilizing a Fibre Channel module in the CRD-5500 to

communicate with multiple hosts connected to a Fibre Channel

transport medium (e.g., a Fibre Channel arbitrated loop). Pet. at

22-26 (citing CQ-1003 at ¶¶ 54-62). This is especially true in

light of the CRD-5500 being specifically “designed to support”

25


Fibre Channel. See CQ-1005 at 1. These teachings combined

with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art

render obvious a map that allocates storage to multiple hosts

on the same transport medium. Dr. Levy’s declaration and

deposition testimony confirm this.

Specifically, Dr. Levy provides in his declaration a graphic

illustrating how four hosts on a Fibre Channel arbitrated loop

may be connected to the CRD-5500 via a Tachyon-based I/O

module (i.e., the proposed combination). Ex. 2027, ¶ 89; Resp. at

35. When questioned about the operation [of] this combination,

Dr. Levy confirmed that every communication transmitted

on the Fibre Channel loop identifies the sender (for instance,

by using the sender’s AL_PA). CQ-1025, 119:17-19, 91:9-14.

He explained that, as a result, when the Tachyon chip in the

CRD-5500 receives a communication from a host, the sending

host would be identifiable. Id. at 119:4-25. Dr. Levy

additionally testified that one of ordinary skill in the art at

the time of the invention would know how to create data

structures implementing a desired map between storage and

hosts. CQ-1025, 220:4-14, 93:24-94:12. Accordingly, based on

the testimony of Patent Owner’s own expert, a person of

ordinary skill in the art would know how to physically

combine the references, know how such a combination would

identify particular hosts on a Fibre Channel arbitrated loop,

and would be able to create data structures implementing the

CRD-5500’s goal of “assign[ing] redundancy groups to a

particular host.” CQ-1004 at 1-2. Petitioners’ expert Dr.

26


Hospodor reached this same conclusion: “any hardware or

software modifications to the components of the CRD-5500

necessary to keep them operating in their intended manner would

have been well within the skills of one of ordinary skill in the

art.” CQ-1003, ¶ 61.

Therefore, the combination of the CRD-5500 Manual and

the HP Journal renders obvious the “map” limitation not

only under the Board’s construction, but also under Patent

Owner’s improperly narrow construction.

IPR1226 Pet. Reply 15-17, Appx5102-5104 (citing Levy Depo., 91:9-14, 93:24-

94:12, 119:4-25, 220:4-14, Appx5237, Appx5239-5240, Appx5265, Appx5366;

Hospodor Dec. ¶ 61, Appx342) (bold/underline emphasis added; other emphasis in

original; internal case law citations omitted).

In other words, the HP Journal teaches putting multiple host devices onto a

single Fibre Channel loop, each of which is identifiable by its AL_PA.

Crossroads’ expert acknowledged that in the proposed combination of the CRD

Manual with the HP Journal, the AL_PA of each host device would be presented

to the Tachyon chip (of the HP Journal), and the AL_PA would be used as the

“identifier” in the map taught by the CRD Manual (instead of the CRD Manual’s

channel number). And both experts agreed that one of ordinary skill the art would

know how to create a basic data structure that constitutes a map, consistent with

27


the fact that the specification does not require the map to have any particular

format. These factual findings are also uncontested in this appeal.

The Board further developed an administrative record by supporting its “FC-

address mapping” finding with reasoning and explanation. In particular, the Board

explained that the Fibre Channel addressing of the HP Journal should be taken into

account when evaluating the combination, refuting Crossroads’ attempt during the

trial to bodily incorporate only a subset of the HP Journal’s teachings. IPR1226

Dec. 22, Appx22; IPR1463 Dec. 21-22, Appx60-61; IPR1544 Dec. 16-17,

Appx97-98. Specifically, in responding to Crossroads’ arguments, the Board

applied the evidentiary record and came to a reasoned conclusion regarding the

applicability of the HP Journal’s Fibre Channel addressing to the claimed

mapping, as illustrated in the following paragraph:

Although Patent Owner argues that Petitioners rely on such a

configuration because they propose combining the CRD Manual

with the HP Journal, Patent Owner inaccurately characterizes

Petitioners’ contentions as bodily incorporating only one aspect

of the HP Journal’s teachings—placing all hosts on a single FC

arbitrated loop—while ignoring the HP Journal’s other teachings

regarding implementing such FC loops. As noted in the Petition

(Pet. 20–21), the HP Journal provides detailed disclosures on the

implementation of FC arbitrated loops, including configurations

with multiple host devices. See Pet. Reply 13–20; Ex. 1006,

100–111. The record as a whole supports Petitioners’ contention

28


that a person of ordinary skill would have been able to combine

the teachings of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal to arrive at

a system utilizing FC loops, which maps redundancy groups to

particular hosts and implements access controls as taught by the

CRD Manual, but applying FC addressing capabilities taught by

the HP Journal in lieu of the host channel-based implementation

of the CRD Manual. See Pet. Reply 13–20; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56–61.

IPR1226 Dec. 21-22, Appx21-22; IPR1463 Dec. 21-22, Appx60-61; IPR1544 Dec.

16-17, Appx97-98.

Additionally, far from being an isolated finding, the Board repeatedly refers

back to the above findings when evaluating the dependent claims—explaining that

in the “FC-address mapping” configuration, the Fibre Channel AL_PA identifier is

used to perform the mapping function:

• “As discussed above, we find this explanation of the combination using

AL_PA in mapping persuasive . . .” IPR1226 Dec. 23, Appx23; IPR1463

Dec. 23, Appx62 (emphasis added).

• “We are persuaded that the . . . use of a FC AL_PA in the HP Journal teach

unique identifiers.” IPR1463 Dec. 26, Appx65.

Accordingly, Crossroads is incorrect that the Board relied only on the CRD

Manual with respect to the mapping limitation. Instead, the Board made a readily

discernible finding that the “FC-address mapping” configuration teaches the

mapping limitation—a finding supported by evidence unchallenged in this appeal

29


and accompanied by reasoned explanation. See Synopsys, Inc., 814 F.3d at 1322.

Moreover, the Board’s robust evidentiary findings and analysis with respect to the

“FC-address mapping” configuration allow this Court to “reasonably discern” that

the Board “followed a proper path” in reaching its ultimate conclusion. See Ariosa

Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We

may affirm an agency ruling if we may reasonably discern that it followed a proper

path, even if that path is less than perfectly clear.”).

To the extent Crossroads maintains its assertion that the Board relied only on

the CRD Manual even in the face of the overwhelming evidence otherwise, the

“Supreme Court made clear that a reviewing court can (and should) affirm an

agency decision on a legal ground not relied on by the agency if there is no issue

of fact, policy, or agency expertise.” In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d at 974 (citing

Chenery, 318 U.S. at 88) (emphasis added). Here, there is no issue of fact with

respect to the Board’s “FC-address mapping” analysis because Crossroads has not

challenged any of the underlying evidentiary findings. As such, this Court need not

make any new fact determinations to find that the mapping limitation is obvious as

a matter of law3 based on the Board’s “FC-address mapping” findings. Id. at 974

(explaining that Chenery permits affirmance of an agency when such affirmance

3 Whether the mapping limitation is obvious is a question of law with underlying issues of fact. See Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

30


“does not depend upon making a determination of fact not previously made by the

[agency]”) (quoting Killip v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 991 F.2d 1564, 1568-69 (Fed.

Cir. 1993)). Thus, even if the Board itself did not rely on its “FC-address mapping”

findings, Chenery encourages this Court to nevertheless use those findings to

affirm the Board’s ultimate conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 975 (“Chenery not

only permits us to supply a new legal ground for affirmance, but encourages such a

resolution.”).

B. Crossroads Has Committed a Case-Dispositive Waiver on Appeal.

Because Crossroads’ Opening Brief does not contest the Board’s fact

findings and legal conclusion that the Fibre Channel addressing teachings of the

HP Journal meet the mapping limitation, the Court should find the issue waived.

See Carbino v. West, 168 F.3d 32, 34-35 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Becton Dickinson

& Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d 792, 800 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) (“the failure of an

appellant to include an issue or argument in the opening brief will be deemed a

waiver of the issue or argument”). And, where the appellant “does not separately

contest” a particular Board finding, the Federal Circuit does not disturb such

finding. See In re Warsaw, 2016 WL 4191193, at *4.

31


1. Crossroads Waived Any Challenge to the Conclusion That “Fibre Channel Addressing” Meets the Mapping Limitation.

As described above, the Board found that the “FC-address mapping”

configuration in which the Fibre Channel AL_PA identifier represents a device

meets the mapping limitation. See IPR1226 Dec. 21-22, Appx21-22; IPR1463 Dec.

21-22, Appx60-61; IPR1544 Dec. 16-17, Appx97-98; see also, IPR1463 Dec. 26,

Appx65 (“We are persuaded that the disclosures of channel numbers in the CRD

Manual and the use of a FC AL_PA in the HP Journal teach unique identifiers.”)

(emphasis added). In particular, the Board held that the “FC-address mapping”

configuration meets the mapping limitation because a person of ordinary skill in

the art would utilize the Fibre Channel addressing taught by the HP Journal

(instead of the channel numbers of the CRD Manual) to represent devices when

there are multiple devices attached to a single Fibre Channel loop:

The record as a whole supports Petitioners’ contention that a

person of ordinary skill would have been able to combine the

teachings of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal to arrive at a

system utilizing FC loops, which maps redundancy groups to


CRD Manual, but applying FC addressing capabilities taught

by the HP Journal in lieu of the host channel-based

implementation of the CRD Manual. See Pet. Reply 13–20; Ex.

1003 ¶¶ 56–61.

32


IPR1226 Dec. 21-22, Appx21-22; IPR1463 Dec. 21-22, Appx60-61; IPR1544

Dec. 16-17, Appx97-98 (emphasis added); see also IPR1226 Dec. 23, Appx23;

IPR1463 Dec. 23, Appx62 (“we find this explanation of the combination using

AL_PA in mapping persuasive”). And again, the Board cited pages of evidence

from Petitioners’ Reply on this point.

Despite this record, Crossroads’ Opening Brief contains no argument

regarding the merits of the Board’s finding that “FC-address mapping”

configuration renders obvious the mapping limitation. Instead, Crossroads uses a

footnote to state “[t]he Board relied only on the Manual for the ‘device-oriented

mapping’ requirements.” Crds. OBr. 18 n.10. Because Crossroads does not

separately contest the Board’s findings that the mapping limitation is met by the

CRD Manual in view of the HP Journal’s disclosure of Fibre Channel addressing,

Crossroads has waived the right to contest such findings in this appeal. See

Carbino, 168 F.3d at 34-35.

And, because Crossroads does not separately contest a finding of

obviousness in a PTAB decision, the Federal Circuit does not disturb such finding.

In re Warsaw, 2016 WL 4191193 at *4. Warsaw is particularly germane to the

instant appeal because, like here, the Board found that a particular reference taught

a claim limitation and the appellant failed to dispute the Board’s finding as to that

33


reference. Id. Based on the appellant’s inaction, the Court did not disturb the

underlying Board finding. Id.

Moreover, not only does Crossroads fail to dispute the Board’s ultimate

conclusion that the CRD Manual in view of the HP Journal’s Fibre Channel

addressing renders obvious the mapping limitation, but it also fails to challenge the

Board’s analysis and factual findings underpinning its conclusion, including the

following three points.

First, the finding that a person of ordinary skill would combine the teachings

of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal is unchallenged in this appeal and was

previously unchallenged during the IPR trial. See IPR1226 Dec. 15-16, Appx15-16

(“Patent Owner does not dispute in its Patent Owner Response that a person of

ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of these

references.”). As such, Crossroads has waived any arguments regarding the

appropriateness of the combination before this Court. See Redline Detection, LLC

v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 450 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that the

Federal Circuit does not consider arguments not raised before the PTAB).

Second, the factual teachings of the HP Journal relied upon by the Board in

the Final Decisions are unchallenged in Crossroads’ Opening Brief. For example,

the Board found—and Crossroads did not contest—that “the HP Journal provides

detailed disclosures on the implementation of FC arbitrated loops, including

34


configurations with multiple host devices” and also that there is “disclosure in the

HP Journal of using an AL_PA on a FC.” IPR1226 Dec. 21-22, Appx21-22;

IPR1463 Dec. 21-22, 27, Appx60-61, Appx66; IPR1544 Dec. 16-17, Appx97-98.

During the underlying trial, Crossroads similarly disregarded the teachings of the

HP Journal and was criticized by the Board for doing so. See id., Appx60 (“Patent

Owner inaccurately characterizes Petitioners’ contentions . . . while ignoring the

HP Journal’s other teachings regarding implementing such FC loops.”)

Third, Crossroads does not address or dispute the Board’s findings as to the

specific manner in which a person of ordinary skill would have combined the

teachings of the CRD Manual and HP Journal. The Board found that a person of

ordinary skill would have used the HP Journal’s Fibre Channel addressing (instead

of a channel-based implementation) to map storage to hosts:

The record as a whole supports Petitioners’ contention that a

person of ordinary skill would have been able to combine the

teachings of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal to arrive at a

system utilizing FC loops, which maps redundancy groups to


CRD Manual, but applying FC addressing capabilities taught

by the HP Journal in lieu of the host channel-based

implementation of the CRD Manual.

IPR1226 Dec. 22, Appx22; IPR1463 Dec. 21-22, Appx60-61; IPR1544 Dec. 16-

17, Appx97-98 (emphasis added). There is no indication in Crossroads’ Opening

35


Brief that it disagrees with such finding. In fact, the opposite is true—Crossroads

explicitly acknowledges that representing a device in a map with an AL_PA

identifier falls within the scope of the mapping limitation:

The patents also describe communicating with certain Fibre

Channel devices by using the device’s “unique port identifier” or

its “loop‐unique ID (AL_PA).” Id. at 8:1–26, Appx19701.

Again, such identifiers are suitable for use in the claimed

“map” because they signify and identify the device itself.

Crds. OBr. 32 (emphasis added). In other words, Crossroads admits that one of the

two identifiers relied upon by the Board to find obviousness falls within the scope

of the claims.

Because the Board’s factual findings, analysis, and conclusions with respect

to mapping with Fibre Channel identifiers are unchallenged, this Court should not

disturb the Board’s ultimate conclusion of obviousness. See In re Warsaw, 2016

WL 4191193 at *4.

Further, the issue of mapping with Fibre Channel identifiers goes directly to

the patentability of the claims, and thus falls within the scope of the judgment

appealed. As such, Crossroads waived the issue by failing to raise it in its Opening

Brief. See Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir.

1999) (“An issue that falls within the scope of the judgment appealed from but is

not raised by the appellant in its opening brief on appeal is necessarily waived.”).

36


And, because this issue is waived, Crossroads cannot contest the propriety of the

Board’s findings with respect to the HP Journal for the first time in its Reply

Brief. See Carbino, 168 F.3d at 34-35 (explaining that under the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, a reply brief “is not the appropriate place to raise, for the first

time, an issue for appellate review”).

Having failed to assign any error on appeal to both the Board’s independent

finding that the “FC-address mapping” configuration renders obvious the mapping

limitation and the supporting factual determinations, Crossroads’ appeal is

rendered moot. Indeed, even if Crossroads were successful on all the issues it

raises on appeal, the Decisions below would still stand on the unchallenged

findings. See In re Warsaw, 2016 WL 4191193 at *4. As a result, the Decisions

below can and should be affirmed without reaching Crossroads’ appeal.

2. Crossroads’ Waiver Also Applies to the Dependent Claims.

Because the Board applied the combination of the CRD Manual and the

Fibre Channel addressing teachings of the HP Journal to the dependent claims and

Crossroads does not appeal such application, the waiver likewise applies to the

dependent claims. There are three sets of dependent claims at issue here, each of

which is addressed below.

First, with respect to the set of dependent claims reciting a “unique

identifier” (’041 claims 14, 33, 50), the Board held—and Crossroads does not

37


dispute—that “[w]e are persuaded that the disclosures of channel numbers in the

CRD Manual and the use of a FC AL_PA in the HP Journal teach unique

identifiers.” IPR1463 Dec. 26, Appx65 (emphasis added).

Second, with respect to the dependent claims that recite a “world wide

name” (’041 claims 15, 34, 51), the Board held—and Crossroads does not

dispute—that a combination that includes the HP Journal teaches these claims.

See IPR1463 Dec. 29-31, Appx68-70. Specifically, the Board found that:

“Petitioners’ observation that the Fibre Channel Standard discloses using world

wide names in heterogeneous systems like the combination of the CRD Manual

and the HP Journal provides reason to combine the references’ disclosures by

using world wide names as unique identifiers.” Id. at 31, Appx70 (emphasis

added).

Third, with respect to the dependent claims that recite a “host device ID”

(’147 claims 17, 24, 31, 36), the Board held—and Crossroads does not dispute—

that “we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioners’ contention

that the combination of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal teaches each

limitation of claims 6-39 of the ’147 patent.” IPR1544 Dec. 20-22, Appx101-103

(emphasis added).

Moreover, to the extent Crossroads argues that the Board did not expressly

rely on the HP Journal for the dependent claim reciting a “host device ID,” the

38


Board has made an undisputed factual finding—with which Crossroads agrees—

that a person of ordinary skill in the art would use an AL_PA to identify a host

device in the map. See, e.g., IPR1463 Dec. 26, Appx65 (“We are persuaded

that . . . a FC AL_PA in the HP Journal teach unique identifiers.”); Crds. OBr. 32

(explaining that an AL_PA is “suitable for use in the claimed ‘map’ because they

signify and identify the device itself”). Accordingly, with no disputed issues of fact

with respect to the AL_PA being a host device identifier, Supreme Court precedent

holds that this Court should affirm the Board’s finding of unpatentability—

regardless of whether the Board originally relied only on the CRD Manual for

these claims. See In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d at 974 (“[T]he Supreme Court made

clear that a reviewing court can (and should) affirm an agency decision on a legal

ground not relied on by the agency if there is no issue of fact, policy, or agency

expertise.”) (citing Chenery, 318 U.S. at 88).

For each set of dependent claims at issue in this appeal, the Board applied

the combination of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal, not just the contested

teachings of the CRD Manual. Because Crossroads has not appealed the

combination of the CRD Manual and the FC addressing teachings of the HP

Journal, this Court should not disturb the Board’s ultimate conclusion of

obviousness. See In re Warsaw, 2016 WL 4191193, at *4.

39


C. Crossroads’ Insular Attack on the CRD Manual Is Insufficient to Show Non-obviousness when the Board Relied on a Combination of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal.

Because Crossroads is estopped from developing new arguments to address

the uncontested portions of the Board’s Final Decisions, the Reply Brief may

attempt to recast its existing arguments regarding the CRD Manual as applicable to

the combination of the CRD Manual and HP Journal. Such a strategy would fail as

a matter of law. It is well settled that “one cannot show non-obviousness by

attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on

combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).

In Keller, as here, the appellant attempted to rebut a holding of obviousness

with evidence and argument concerning only one reference in a combination of

multiple references. Id. at 425-26. The Keller Court affirmed the Patent Office’s

finding of unpatentability, explaining that the proper test for obviousness is what

the combination of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in

the art. Id. at 425. Here, Crossroads’ Opening Brief focuses exclusively on the

channel-oriented approach to mapping described in the CRD Manual and is silent

with respect to the HP Journal. The test, however, is not whether the so-called

“device-to-device mapping” is found in the CRD Manual, but whether the

combined teachings of the CRD Manual and HP Journal suggest to a person of

ordinary skill that such mapping is obvious. And, as discussed above, the Board

40


held that the combination would suggest to a person of ordinary skill that, when the

CRD Manual’s hosts are placed on a Fibre Channel loop, Fibre Channel addressing

(as taught by the HP Journal) can be used to represent the hosts in the map in lieu

of the channel number of the CRD Manual. See IPR1226 Dec. 21-22, Appx21-22;

IPR1463 Dec. 21-22, Appx60-61; IPR1544 Dec. 16-17, Appx97-98. Rather than

address this analysis of the combination, Crossroads’ Opening Brief effectively

ignores the HP Journal, mentioning it only three times in passing and never

assigning error to the Board’s treatment of the reference. See Crds. OBr. 12, 16, 18

n.10. Accordingly, the Court should find, as it did in Keller, that Crossroads’

insular attack of the CRD Manual is insufficient to warrant reversal.

With respect to the dependent claims addressed in its Opening Brief,

Crossroads makes the same error of focusing solely on the CRD Manual and

ignoring the Board’s reliance on the combined teaching of the references. For

example, Crossroads’ arguments regarding the set of dependent claims reciting a

“unique identifier” (’041 claims 14, 33, 50) attack only the teachings of the CRD

Manual without reference to the combination. Crds. OBr. 35-37 (“The CRD-5500

User’s Manual nowhere describes using ‘unique identifiers’ to identify connected

devices”). The Board, however, was explicit that its analysis contemplated “the

combination of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal,” and ultimately determined

that both the CRD Manual’s channel numbers and the HP Journal’s AL_PA

41


identifiers teach unique identifiers. IPR1463 Dec. 26, Appx65 (“We are persuaded

that the disclosures of channel numbers in the CRD Manual and the use of a FC

AL_PA in the HP Journal teach unique identifiers.”). Crossroads’ isolated attack of

the Board’s findings as to the CRD Manual’s channel numbers is inadequate and

should be dismissed as such. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Notably,

Crossroads was already on notice of the inadequacy of its strategy, as the Board

faulted Crossroads for making the same mistake during the trial: “Patent Owner’s

argument improperly attacks the CRD Manual individually, overlooking the

disclosure in the HP Journal of using an AL_PA on a FC.” IPR1463 Dec. 27,

Appx66.

Crossroads contests two additional sets of dependent claims in this appeal—

those that recite a “world wide name” (’041 claims 15, 34, 51) and those that recite

a “host device ID” (’147 claims 17, 24, 30, 36). In each case, Crossroads’ Opening

Brief once again exclusively attacks the teachings of the CRD Manual, while

ignoring the combined teachings of the CRD Manual and HP Journal. Crds. OBr.

37-40. Keller dictates that Crossroads’ attacks fail because the Board relied upon

the combination, not the CRD Manual alone, to find unpatentability. See In re

Keller, 642 F.2d at 426; see also IPR1463 Dec. 29-31, Appx68-70 (“The argument

that the channel numbers disclosed by the CRD Manual are not world wide names

is unpersuasive because Petitioners rely on the Fibre Channel Standard as teaching

42


use of world wide names in systems like the one that results from combining the

CRD Manual with the teachings of the HP Journal.”) (emphasis added);

IPR1544 Dec. 20-22, Appx101-103 (“[W]e find that a preponderance of the

evidence supports Petitioners’ contention that the combination of the CRD

Manual and the HP Journal teaches each limitation of claims 6–39 of the ’147

patent.”) (emphasis added).

Accordingly, Crossroads’ insular attack of the CRD Manual throughout its

Opening Brief is insufficient to show non-obviousness of the claims where the

Board relied on a combination of the CRD Manual and the HP Journal to find

unpatentability.

II. The Board Did Not Err in Finding All Claims of the Patents Obvious Over the Cited Prior Art.

Given that the Board’s finding regarding the “FC-address mapping”

configuration is unchallenged in this appeal, the Court need not substantively

address Crossroads’ arguments with respect to the Board’s finding regarding the

“channel-number mapping” configuration. Nevertheless, the Board did not err in

finding the mapping limitation obvious in view of the “channel-number mapping”

configuration taught in the CRD Manual.

In alleging error, Crossroads does not contest the Board’s claim construction

for the mapping limitation; rather, it argues the Board improperly expanded the

construction upon application to the prior art. Crds. OBr. 21 (“The reversible legal

43


error comes not from the words of [the] construction itself, but in the Board’s later

expansion of the construction when it applied the claims to the Manual”). The

Board did not err because the prior art falls squarely within the plain language of

the construction.

A. The Board’s Construction of the Mapping Limitation Merely Requires that the “Map” with a “Representation of Devices” Create a Path.

In an inter partes review, a claim limitation is given “its broadest reasonable

construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37

C.F.R. §42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131,

2142 (2016). Here, the Board held that the broadest reasonable construction of the

mapping limitation is:

To create a path from a device on one side of the storage router

to a device on the other side of the router. A “map” contains a

representation of devices on each side of the storage router, so

that when a device on one side of the storage router wants to

communicate with a device on the other side of the storage

router, the storage router can connect the devices.


Crossroads does not contest the wording of the Board’s construction; nor does it

contest any of the Board’s underlying claim construction analysis. Crds. OBr. 21.

Rather, Crossroads alleges that the Board erred in finding that the channel number

taught by the CRD Manual can be a “representation” of a device under a proper

44


reading of the construction. Id. The Board did not err because it properly applied

the claim construction to the teachings of the prior art.

In that regard, the first sentence of the construction expressly sets forth that

“to map” means “to create a path from a device on one side of the storage router to

a device on the other side of the router.” The second sentence of the construction

specifies that the path being created is a communication path made possible by a

“map contain[ing] a representation of devices.” The construction is agnostic with

respect to the specific type of representations of devices that are in the “map,” so

long as the “storage router can connect the devices.” Accordingly, the undisputed

words of the construction merely require that the “map contain[ing] a

representation of devices” create a communication path.

This plain understanding comports with the broad disclosure in the

specification of the Patents. Nothing in the specification limits how the claimed

mapping must be performed. See Veritas Techs. LLC, v. Veeam Software Corp.,

No. 2015-1894, 2016 WL 4525278, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2016) (refusing to

limit the claims to a specific technique when the specification is not so limited);

see also Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366–67

(Fed. Cir. 2012) (“To constitute disclaimer, there must be a clear and unmistakable

disclaimer . . . It is likewise not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the

embodiments, contain a particular limitation.”).

45


For example, in describing the allocation of storage to workstations in Fig. 3,

the specification is open-ended with respect to implementation specifics, noting

simply that the allocation can be accomplished “through the use of mapping tables

or other mapping techniques.” ’147 Patent, 4:28-29, Appx19699 (emphasis

added). And, as acknowledged by Crossroads’ expert, there are no specific

examples of mapping tables in the specification. Levy Depo., 93:14-16,

Appx26347. Instead, mapping tables are only referenced in an abstract, non-

limiting manner. See, e.g., ’147 Patent, 5:7-9, Appx19700 (“To accomplish this

function, storage router 56 can include routing tables and security controls that

define storage allocation for each workstation 58.”), 9:11-14, Appx19702 (“The

storage router can use tables to map, for each initiator, what storage access is

available and what partition is being addressed by a particular request.”).

Accordingly, the specification does not require that the storage router map storage

to workstations in a particular manner, whether via mapping tables or otherwise.

Additionally, as explained above, the few examples in the specification of

identifiers that may be used in the map to represent devices confirm that such

identifiers merely need to create a communication path between devices, and do

not need to be immutably associated with the device itself, as urged by Crossroads.

Crds. OBr. 32. For example, according to the specification, devices may be

represented in the map with (i) an Arbitrated Loop Physical Address (AL_PA)

46


when hosts are connected to the storage router via Fibre Channel (’147 Patent, 8:1-

10, Appx19701) and (ii) a SCSI ID when hosts are connected to the storage router

via a SCSI bus (id. at 6:57-61, Appx19700). An AL_PA identifier temporarily

identifies a port associated with a device on the loop and creates a communication

path between the storage router and the device associated with the port. See Levy

Depo. at 123:15-24, Appx26377, 87:24-88:6, Appx26341-26342, 90:4-13,

Appx26344. Similarly, a SCSI ID identifies a “host adapter” that “connects

between a host system and the SCSI bus” and facilitates communication between

the storage router and the host associated with the host adapter. See SCSI-2

Standard, 3-5, Appx24500-24502 (emphasis added); Levy Depo., 123:15-24,

Appx26377. According to Crossroads’ expert, the AL_PA and SCSI ID identifiers

in the specification can serve as representations of devices in the map because they

are “sufficient to identify a host for the purpose of the mapping.” Levy Depo.,

129:16-17, Appx26383. That is, the example identifiers in the specification can

represent host devices in the map because they create communication paths to the

host devices for the purpose of mapping. Id. at 123:15-24, Appx26377.

Accordingly, because the specification explicitly contemplates representing

devices in the map with intermediate identifiers (e.g., identifiers for a port or host

adapter associated with a device), the “representation of devices” in the Board’s

claim construction cannot be limited to identifiers that are immutably associated

47


with the device itself, as urged by Crossroads. See Veritas Techs. LLC, 2016 WL

4525278, at *4. The Board therefore was correct to find that “we are not persuaded

that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the ‘map’ limitations mandates

mapping directly or immutably to a host device itself, or excludes mapping to

devices using intermediate identifiers.” IPR1226 Dec. 9-10, Appx9-10; IPR1463

Dec. 9-10, Appx48-49; IPR1544 Dec. 7-8, Appx88-89.

In sum, an identifier in a map that creates a communication path between a

device and storage is a “representation” of that device when applying the broadest

reasonable construction.

B. Crossroads Improperly Imports Limitations into the Board’s Construction.

Instead of addressing what it actually means “to map” (i.e., to “create a

path”), as set forth in the Board’s claim construction, Crossroads improperly seeks

to import limitations into the claims from the specification. See, e.g., SuperGuide

Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] particular

embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim

when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”); see also, Respironics,

Inc. v. Zoll Med. Corp., 2015-1485, 2016 WL 4056094, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir. July 29,

2016) (holding that incorporating limitations into a claim construction when

applying the claim construction to the prior art is improper).

Here, Crossroads’ Opening Brief alleges that, unlike the channel-oriented

48


system of the CRD Manual, the claimed mapping allows the router to “differentiate

access rights among any number of devices.” Crds. OBr. 20, 26. Although

differentiated access among multiple devices may be potentially described in the

specification in association with Figure 3 (e.g., “Workstation A Storage” is

allocated to “Workstation A”), the claims of the Patents are not so limited.

Specifically, the portion of the claims directed to access rights recites: “control

access from the at least one device to the at least one storage device.”4 This broad

claim language references access of a given host device to a storage device, and is

silent as to the relative access rights of a number of host devices vis-a-vis the at

least one storage device, and thus is broader than Figure 3. Accordingly, reliance

on Figure 3 to require that the claims necessarily require different access rights

among a plurality of host devices for a given storage device would improperly read

an embodiment into the claims. See SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875.

The Board came to the same unchallenged conclusion. Specifically, the

Board construed the “access control” limitation to mean “controls which limit a

device’s access to a specific subset of storage devices or sections of a single

storage device according to the map.” IPR1226 Dec. 12, Appx12; IPR1463 Dec.

12, Appx51. In arriving at this construction, the Board explicitly rejected

4 This claim language is found in claim 21 of the ’147 Patent, the “representative” claim selected by Crossroads. Crds. OBr. 7-8.

49


Crossroads’ contention that the access control limitation requires “different storage

access to different hosts”:

Petitioners argue that Patent Owner seeks to impermissibly

narrow the “access control” limitations by arguing that to meet

these limitations the prior art must additionally provide different

storage access to different hosts. Id. at 8.

. . . We agree with Petitioners that the “access controls”

limitations are not as limited as Patent Owner contends.

IPR1226 Dec. 11-12, Appx11-12; IPR1463 Dec. 11-12, Appx50-51. Crossroads

does not contest this finding in its Opening Brief and has therefore waived its right

to argue that the channel-oriented system of the CRD Manual does not meet the

claims because it fails to provide “differentiate[s] access rights.” See Carbino, 168

F.3d at 34-35.

Crossroads further seeks to narrow the Board’s construction with a

requirement that the mapping “prevent[s] access even in the presence of

unauthorized physical connections.” Crds. OBr. 3. First, the plain language of the

claims contains no such requirement. Second, this requirement contradicts the

underlying record. Specifically, Crossroads’ own expert testified that the claimed

storage router is unable to prevent unauthorized access when a workstation is

physically swapped with a different workstation because “from the point of view

50


of the map” the two systems are the same. See Levy Depo. 200:10-17, Appx26454

(cited in IPR1226 Pet. Reply 6-7, Appx5093-5094).

Accordingly, Crossroads’ attempts to narrow the Board’s construction of the

mapping limitation fail because they are predicated upon the importation of

embodiments from the specification and assertions that contradict the underlying

trial record.

C. The Board Did Not Expand its Construction When Determining that the Channel-Oriented Approach of the CRD Manual Teaches the Mapping Limitation.

The Board gave full effect to all the words of its construction of the mapping

limitation and was correct to find that the teachings of the CRD Manual fall within

such construction.

Crossroads cites to Acceleron as an example of the Board being overturned

for committing a claim construction error. Acceleron is distinguishable because, in

that case, (i) the Board was applying the actual words of the claim (rather than a

claim construction), and (ii) the Board read words out of the claim when applying

the claim to the prior art. See Dell v. Acceleron LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 1300-01 (Fed.

Cir. 2016) (“the Board’s reading of claim 20 denies any substantial meaning to

‘remotely poll.’”).

Here, the Board applied the broadest reasonable construction of the mapping

limitation, and in doing so, did not read out any words or deny them substantial

51


meaning. In particular, the Board found that the channel numbers in the CRD

Manual’s Host LUN Mapping represent hosts because “each host channel is

dedicated to a single host—thus, in effect, mapping to a host channel is tantamount

to mapping to a particular host.” IPR1226 Dec. 20, Appx20; IPR1463 Dec. 20,

Appx59; IPR1544 Dec. 15, Appx96. The Board supported its conclusion with the

undisputed evidence that the CRD Manual “explicitly refers to mapping to hosts

and host channels interchangeably.” IPR1226 Dec. 20, Appx20 (citing to CRD

Manual at 1-1, Appx446). Despite its reliance on Acceleron, Crossroads

nevertheless acknowledges that the Board applied the words “representation of

devices” of the construction to the CRD Manual. Crds. Obr. 21 (“[T]he Board

wrongly interpreted its phrase ‘a representation of devices’ by finding that a

‘channel’ (in the Manual) could be a ‘representation’ of the device.”).

Additionally, the Board was correct to find that the CRD Manual’s channel

number can be a “representation” of a device in the claimed “map” because the

channel number is used to create a communication path between the host device

and storage. As explained above, the Board construed “to map” to simply mean “to

create a path.” IPR1226 Dec. 10, Appx10; IPR1463 Dec. 10, Appx49; IPR1544

Dec. 8, Appx89. It is unchallenged that the system described in the CRD Manual

creates a communication path between hosts and storage devices attached to the

system. The Board found as much in the Final Decisions: “the CRD-5500 RAID

52


controller routes commands and data between hosts (i.e., initiators) and storage

devices (i.e., targets) coupled to the controller.” See, e.g., IPR1226 Dec. 12,

Appx12. These communication paths between host devices and storage devices are

established with a mapping feature called “Host LUN Mapping,” which maps

subsets of storage (called “redundancy groups”) to “particular” hosts. CRD Manual

1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 4-5, Appx446-448, Appx481 (“By using the controller’s Host LUN

Mapping feature, you can assign redundancy groups to a particular host.”). Each

Host LUN Mapping screen includes a distinct channel number (e.g., “Channel 0”)

that serves as an intermediate identifier between the “particular” host on the

channel and redundancy groups, as shown in the following annotated screenshot

relied upon by the Board:

Id. at 4-5, Appx481 (annotated); (originally found in IPR1226 Pet. Rep. at 12,

Appx5099; IPR1463 Pet. Rep. at 12, Appx15153; IPR1544 Pet. Rep. at 12,

Appx26207) (cited by Board at IPR1226 Dec. 20, Appx20; IPR1463 Dec. 20,




53


Appx59; IPR1544 Dec. 15, Appx96). The channel number represents the

“particular” host device to which the redundancy groups are mapped.

Once storage on a storage device has been mapped to a host via the channel

number associated with the host, the host can communicate with the storage

device, as recognized by the Board. IPR1226 Dec. 20, Appx20 (“These hosts may

then access redundancy groups via the CRD-5500 controller.”); IPR1463 Dec. 20,

Appx59 (same); IPR1544 Dec. 15, Appx96 (same). Accordingly, the channel

number in the CRD Manual’s mapping is a “representation” of a device under the

Board’s construction because it creates a communication path between a host

device and a storage device. The CRD Manual’s mapping is a device-to-device

mapping.

Crossroads’ repeated assertion that the CRD-5500 controller maps to

“channels rather than to the actual hosts” ignores that the CRD Manual expressly

teaches mapping to a “particular” host:

“By using the controller’s Host LUN Mapping feature, you can assign

redundancy groups to a particular host.” CRD Manual 1-2, Appx447

(emphasis added).

“The controller’s Host LUN Mapping feature makes it possible to map RAID

sets differently to each host.” CRD Manual 1-1, Appx446 (emphasis added).

Even the name of the mapping feature—“Host LUN Mapping”—confirms that the

54


CRD Manual teaches performing device-to-device mapping. Crossroads’ narrow

focus on the CRD Manual’s physical “channels” does not acknowledge that the

channel numbers associated with the channel are intermediate identifiers that

represent devices in the CRD Manual’s device-to-device mapping.

It is undisputed that the CRD Manual teaches a one-host-per-channel

configuration (Fig. 1-2) that uses the channel numbers in the Host LUN Mapping

to create distinct communication paths between individual host devices and storage

devices. CRD Manual at 4-5, Appx481. The creation of these distinct

communication paths illustrates that the channel numbers are “representations” of

devices that fall within the Board’s construction. As such, the Board was correct

that: “[t]he specific configuration depicted in Figure 1-2 meets the mapping

limitation because each host channel is dedicated to a single host—thus, in effect,

mapping to a host channel is tantamount to mapping to a particular host.” See


Crossroads thus ignores the teachings of the prior art, while discounting the broad

language of the claims. The Board therefore did not err in finding that the channel

number in the CRD Manual’s mapping is a “representation” of a device when

applying the broadest reasonable interpretation.

55


Dependent Claims. With respect to the three sets of dependent claims

contested in the Opening Brief, the Board did not err in finding that the channel-

oriented disclosure of the CRD Manual renders them obvious.

First, the Board was correct to find that the “channel numbers in the CRD

Manual” teach the “unique identifiers” recited in claims 14, 33, and 50 of the ’041

Patent. 1463IPR Dec. 26, Appx65. Crossroads’ argument in the Opening Brief that

the CRD Manual’s channel numbers “cannot[] provide device-to-device mapping”

is demonstrably wrong in view of the teachings of the CRD Manual. Crds. OBr.

36-37. In particular, the CRD Manual explicitly teaches device-to-device mapping:

“By using the controller’s Host LUN Mapping feature, you can assign redundancy

groups to a particular host.” CRD Manual 1-2, Appx447 (emphasis added).

Crossroads fails to explain how storage can be assigned to a “particular host” if a

channel number in the CRD Manual’s mapping does not uniquely identify that

host. Figure 1-2 of the CRD Manual confirms that a channel number is a unique

identifier for a host device because each channel contains a single host device. Id.

at 1-3, Appx448.

Moreover, Crossroads’ argument that a channel number cannot be a unique

identifier for a device because it does not identify “the device itself” is undercut by

the examples of unique identifiers in the specification. For example, the AL_PA

identifier disclosed in the specification identifies a port on a Fibre Channel

56


arbitrated loop, yet still uniquely identifies a host device in the mapping. See Levy

Depo., 87:24-88:6, Appx26341-26342. Likewise, the CRD Manual’s channel

number identifies a channel, yet still acts as a “unique identifier” for a host device

in the Host LUN Mapping. See IPR1463 Dec. 26, Appx65 (“We are persuaded that

the disclosures of channel numbers in the CRD Manual . . . teach unique

identifiers.”). The Board’s holding of unpatentability with respect to claims 14, 33,

50 of the ’041 Patent should therefore be affirmed.

Second, the Board was correct to find that dependent claims 15, 34, and 51

of the ’041 Patent are rendered obvious by the combination of the CRD Manual,

HP Journal, and Fibre Channel Standard. IPR1463 Dec. 29-31, Appx68-70.

Crossroads’ argument in its Opening Brief that the combination does not teach

mapping with a “world wide name” is just as unpersuasive on appeal as it was

during the trial. In particular, Crossroads again attacks the references individually

and completely ignores the HP Journal’s role in the combination, addressing only

the CRD Manual and Fibre Channel Standard. Crds. OBr. 39 (“There is no

disclosure in the Manual, or in the Fibre Channel Standard, of somehow reshaping

the channel‐oriented map in the Manual so that it becomes a device‐to‐device

map . . . .”). The Board’s reasoned explanation that takes into account the

combined teachings of the all three references should be affirmed:

57


Patent Owner’s arguments are unpersuasive because they attack

the references individually. The argument that the channel

numbers disclosed by the CRD Manual are not world wide

names is unpersuasive because Petitioners rely on the Fibre

Channel Standard as teaching use of world wide names in

systems like the one that results from combining the CRD

Manual with the teachings of the HP Journal. The argument that

the CRD Manual does not teach specifying the attached hosts on

a channel is also unpersuasive. First, contrary to Patent Owner’s

arguments, we are persuaded that in the system shown in Figure

1-2 of the CRD Manual, the channel numbers uniquely identify

hosts attached to the channels. Second, Petitioners’ observation

that the Fibre Channel Standard discloses using world wide

names in heterogeneous systems like the combination of the

CRD Manual and the HP Journal provides reason to combine the

references’ disclosures by using world wide names as unique

identifiers.

IPR1463, Dec. 30-31, Appx69-70.

Accordingly, because there is no dispute that the Fibre Channel Standard

discloses a “world wide name,” and Crossroads does not challenge the Board’s

finding that world wide names would be used in a combination that includes the

teachings of the HP Journal, the Board’s holding of unpatentability should be

affirmed.

58


Third, the Board was correct to find that the CRD Manual’s channel

numbers teach the “host device ID” recited in claims 17, 24, 31, 36 of the ’147

Patent. 1544IPR Dec. 20-22, Appx101-103. Crossroads argues once again in its

Opening Brief that the Board erred with respect to these dependent claims because

channel numbers “do not identify devices in any respect.” Crds. OBr. 40.

Crossroads’ argument is belied by the disclosure in the specification of host device

identifiers used in the map that indirectly identify a device—for example, the

AL_PA identifier that identifies a port on an arbitrated loop to which a host device

is connected. ’147 Patent, 8:1-10, Appx19701 (“Fibre Channel devices within a

fabric are addressed by a unique port identifier.”); see also Levy Depo., 87:24-

88:6, Appx26341-26342. Crossroads admits as much in its Opening Brief, stating

that intermediate identifiers such as a “unique port identifier” are “suitable for use

in the claimed ‘map’ because they signify and identify the device itself.” Crds.

OBr. 32 (emphasis added) (citing the ’147 Patent 8:1-26, Appx19701).

Accordingly, because the CRD Manual’s channel number acts as a host device

identifier in the mapping in the same manner as the AL_PA identifier in the

specification, the Board’s holding of unpatentability with respect to claims 17, 24,

31, 36 of the ’147 Patent should be affirmed.

As such, this Court should uphold the Board’s holding that all claims of the

Patents at issue are unpatentable as obvious.

59


CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

For the reasons outlined above, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly

held that all claims of the ’035, ’041, and ’147 Patents are unpatentable.

Accordingly, Appellees urge this Court to affirm the Board’s decisions.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ David L. McCombs David L. McCombs Debra J. McComas Andrew S. Ehmke Scott T. Jarratt HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75219 Telephone: (972) 739-8636 Facsimile: (972) 692-9116 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Matthew C. Gaudet DUANE MORRIS LLP 1075 Peachtree St. NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 253-6902 Facsimile: (404) 393-1908 [email protected] Joseph A. Powers DUANE MORRIS LLP 30 S. 17th St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 979-1842 Facsimile: (215) 689-3797 [email protected]

60


Clement S. Roberts DURIE TANGRI LLP 217 Leidesdorff St. San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 362-6666 Facsimile: (415) 236-6300 [email protected] Counsel for Appellees Cisco Systems, Inc. and Quantum Corp.

/s/ Jared Bobrow Jared Bobrow WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 [email protected] Counsel for Appellee Oracle Corporation

/s/ Orion Armon Orion Armon Peter J. Sauer COOLEY LLP 380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900 Broomfield, CO 80021-8023 Telephone: (720) 566-4000 Facsimile: (720) 566-4099 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Appellee Dot Hill Systems Corp.

61


ECF CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that (i) the required privacy redactions have been made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2; (ii) the electronic submission is an exact copy of the paper document; (iii) the document has been scanned for viruses with the most recent version of a commercial virus scanning program and is free of viruses; and (iv) the paper document will be maintained for three years after the mandate or order closing the case issues.

/s/ David L. McCombs David L. McCombs

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because:

■ this brief contains 12,793 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).

2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(6) because:

■ this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2010 in 14 point Times New Roman font.

/s/ David L. McCombs David L. McCombs

15941712_1

62


Form 30 Rev. 03/16

FORM 30. Certificate of Service

September 21, 2016

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

I certify that I served a copy on counsel of record on

Haynes and Boone LLP

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Law Firm

NOTE: For attorneys filing documents electronically, the name of the filer under whose log-in and password a document is submitted must be preceded by an "/s/" and typed in the space where the signature would otherwise appear. Graphic and other electronic signatures are discouraged.

by:

U.S. Mail

Name of CounselDavid L. McCombs /s/ David L. McCombs

Fax

Hand

Electronic Means (by E-mail or CM/ECF)

Signature of Counsel

2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700Address

Dallas, Texas 75219City, State, Zip

972.739.8636Telephone Number

972.692.9116Fax Number

[email protected] Address

Reset Fields


Date post:	26-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

In The United States Court of Appeals ... - Crossroads Systems · 9/21/2016 · Suite 900 ....

Documents