Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ——————— BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ——————— Cisco Systems, Inc., Petitioner ——————— Case IPR2017-01933 ——————— PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,478,799 1 Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799 TABLE OF CONTENTS PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................. 5 I. Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................... 13 A. Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................... 13 B. Related Matters ........................................................................................ 13 C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ............................. 13 II. Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 14 III. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 14 IV. Relief Requested and Overview of Reasons Therefor .................................... 15 V. Description of the Technology ........................................................................ 15 A. Evolution of Computer Storage Systems ................................................ 15 B. Cryptographic Hash ................................................................................. 16 C. The ’799 Patent ........................................................................................ 17 1. Summary of the ’799 Patent ............................................................ 17 2. Prosecution History ......................................................................... 20 3. Previous IPR Proceedings ............................................................... 20 D. Page Citations and Quotations ................................................................ 21 VI. Identification of Challenges and Claim Construction ..................................... 21 A. Challenged Claims ................................................................................... 21 B. Claim Construction .................................................................................. 21 C. Statutory Grounds for Challenges ........................................................... 24 2 Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799 D. Petitioner’s Challenges Are Not Cumulative or Duplicative of Prior Patent Office Proceedings ....................................................................... 25 E. Identification of How the Construed Claims Are Unpatentable ............. 26 1. Challenge #1: Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, 17-22, 27, 28, and 31-35 are obvious over Muthitacharoen and Dabek ................................. 26 a. Summary of Muthitacharoen .................................................. 26 b. Summary of Dabek. ................................................................ 28 c. Reasons to Combine Muthitacharoen and Dabek ................... 29 d. Detailed Claim Analysis ......................................................... 31 Claim 1 .................................................................................... 31 2. Challenge #2: Claims 5, 6 are unpatentable as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Muthitacharoen, Dabek, and Agrawal ........................................................................................... 71 a. Brief summary of Agrawal ..................................................... 71 b. Reasons to Combine Muthitacharoen/Dabek with Agrawal .. 72 c. Detailed Claim Analysis ......................................................... 72 3. Challenge #3: Claims 10, 15, and 26 are unpatentable as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Muthitacharoen, Dabek, and McKusick ................................................................................. 74 a. Brief summary of McKusick .................................................. 74 b. Reasons to Combine Muthitacharoen/Dabek with McKusick ................................................................................ 75 c. Detailed Claim Analysis ......................................................... 76 4. Challenge #4: Claims 29 and 30 are obvious over Muthitacharoen, Dabek, and Bunte. ................................................ 81 3 Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799 a. Brief summary of Bunte ......................................................... 81 b. Reasons to Combine Muthitacharoen/Dabek with Bunte ....... 81 c. Detailed Claim Analysis ......................................................... 83 5. Challenge #5: Claims 16 and 36 are unpatentable as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Muthitacharoen, Dabek, and Bondurant ................................................................................. 85 a. Brief summary of Bondurant .................................................. 85 b. Reasons to Combine Muthitacharoen/Dabek with Bondurant ................................................................................ 86 c. Detailed Claim Analysis ......................................................... 87 VII. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 90 VIII. Certificate of Word Count ............................................................................... 91 IX. Certificate of Service ....................................................................................... 92 4 Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799 PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST August 11, 2017 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799 (“the ’799 patent”) 1002 Prosecution History of the ’799 patent 1003 U.S. Prov. App. No. 61/269,633 (“the ’633 provisional”) 1004 Declaration of Dr. Prashant Shenoy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 1005 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Prashant Shenoy 1006 Intentionally omitted 1007 Athicha Muthitacharoen, et al., “Ivy: A Read/Write Peer-to-Peer File System,” Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI ’02), OPERATING SYSTEMS REVIEW, Vol. 36, Issue SI (Winter 2002). 1008 Frank Dabek, et al., “Wide-area cooperative storage with CFS,” Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP’01), OPERATING SYSTEMS REVIEW, Vol. 35, No. 5 (Dec. 2001). 1009 Nitin Agrawal, et al., “Design Tradeoffs for SSD Performance,” USENIX’08: 2008 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (Jun. 25, 2008). 5 Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799 1010 U.S. Patent No. 8,028,106 to Bondurant et al. (“Bondurant”) 1011 Marshall Kirk McKusick, et al., THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FREEBSD OPERATING SYSTEM (2005). 1012 “Robust and Efficient Data Management for a Distributed Hash Table” by Josh Cates (“Cates”). 1013 Marice J. Bach, THE DESIGN OF THE UNIX OPERATING SYSTEM (1986) (selected pages). 1014 Prashant Shenoy, et al., “Symphony: An Integrated Multimedia File System,” Proceedings of SPIE 3310, Multimedia Computing and Networking 1998. 1015 Garth Gibson, et al., “A Cost-Effective, High-Bandwidth Storage Architecture,” PROCEEDINGS OF THE 8TH CONFERENCE ON ARCHITECTURAL SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES AND OPERATING SYSTEMS (1998). 1016 Mike Mesnier, et al., “Object-Based Storage,” IEEE COMMUNICATION MAGAZINE (Aug. 2003). 1017 R. Rivest, “The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm,” Request for Comments 1321, Internet Engineering Task Force (Apr. 1992). 6 Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799 1018 Sean Quinlan, et al., “Venti: a new approach to archival storage,” PROCEEDINGS OF FAST 2002 CONFERENCE OF FILE AND STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES (2002). 1019 Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2016-01779 (Sept. 14, 2016). 1020 Patent Owner Response, IPR2016-01779 (Dec. 27, 2016). 1021 Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2016-01780 (Sept. 14, 2016). 1022 Patent Owner Response, IPR2016-01780 (Dec. 27, 2016). 1023 Bruce Eckel, C++ INSIDE & OUT (1992) (selected pages). 1024 Mendel Rosenblum, THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A LOG- STRUCTURED FILE SYSTEM (1995) (selected pages). th 1025 WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD COMPUTER DICTIONARY, 10 Ed. (2003) (selected pages). 1026 MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY, 5th Ed. (2002) (selected pages). 1027 AMD Athlon Processor Technical Brief, Rev. D (Dec. 1999). 1028 Stevens, et al., “The first collision for full SHA-1,” Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/190 (2017). 1029 Andrew S. Tanenbaum, MODERN OPERATING SYSTEMS, 2d Ed. (2001) (selected pages). 7 Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799 th 1030 Alan Freedman, COMPUTER DESKTOP ENCYCLOPEDIA, 9 Ed. (2001) (selected pages). 1031 Sang-Won Lee, et al., “A Case for Flash Memory SSD in Enterprise Database Applications,” Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (2008). 1032 Bruce Schneier, APPLIED CRYPTOGRAPHY, 2d Ed. (1996) (selected pages). 1033 Martin Placek, “Storage Exchange: A Global Platform for Trading Distributed Storage Services,” Master of Engineering Science Thesis, The University of Melbourne (Jul, 2006). 1034 Ragib Hasan, et al., “A Survey of Peer-to-Peer Storage Techniques for Distributed File Systems,” International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing (2005). 1035 Frequently Asked Questions for FreeBSD 2.X, 3.X and 4.X, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20020404064240/http:// www.freebsd.org:80/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/install.html. 1036 AMD Athlon Processor Module Data Sheet,