PTAB

IPR2013-00151

Veeam Software Corp v. SymanTec Corp

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System of Providing Periodic Replication
  • Brief Description: The ’299 patent describes a data availability technique called "periodic replication." The invention replaces prior art replication logs with a "storage object" that contains both a point-in-time copy of a primary data volume and a map of changes to that volume, which is used to periodically update a secondary site.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Ohran and Veritas - Claims 13 and 16 are obvious over Ohran in view of Veritas.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ohran (Patent 5,835,953) and Veritas ("VERITAS File System™ 3.4: Administrator's Guide – Solaris").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ohran teaches a backup system that meets nearly all limitations of the challenged claims. Ohran discloses creating snapshots (a point-in-time copy) and using both a backup map and a snapshot map (a storage volume map) to track changes and replicate them from a primary to a secondary storage device. This, Petitioner contended, teaches limitations [A] through [E] of claim 13. The only missing element was limitation [F], which requires "storing an extent, wherein said extent comprises a reference to a modified region... and a length." Petitioner asserted that Veritas, a technical guide for an extent-based file system, expressly discloses this element, defining an extent as an "address-length pair."
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Ohran and Veritas to improve performance. Ohran’s background discusses the need to improve backup system performance, particularly over low-bandwidth links. Veritas describes its extent-based file system as providing "performance enhancements" over traditional block-based systems. A POSITA would therefore be motivated to substitute the well-known, higher-performance, extent-based file system from Veritas into the general backup framework of Ohran.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued the combination was a simple substitution of one known file system type for another. As this substitution operates at a lower level than Ohran's backup logic, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation that integrating Veritas's file system would predictably improve performance without disrupting Ohran’s overall method.

Ground 4: Obviousness over Kleiman and Veritas - Claims 13 and 16 are obvious over Kleiman in view of Veritas.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kleiman (Application # 2002/0049718) and Veritas.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Kleiman, like Ohran, discloses the core claimed method but lacks the "extent" limitation. Kleiman describes a volume mirroring process that creates snapshots (a point-in-time copy) and uses a "mark-on-allocate" storage image to track incremental changes (a storage volume map). This system periodically transfers changes to a destination, meeting limitations [A] through [E]. As in the first ground, Petitioner relied on Veritas to teach the "extent" limitation [F].
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was again performance improvement. Kleiman acknowledges that prior art backup and duplication systems were "relatively awkward and slow" and "expensive." A POSITA, seeking to overcome these known deficiencies, would be motivated to replace Kleiman's block-based file system with the high-performance, extent-based system described in Veritas.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that because extents are an internal file system mechanism, replacing Kleiman's underlying file system with the extent-based system from Veritas would be a straightforward and predictable modification that would not require changing existing applications.

Ground 7: Obviousness over DeKoning and Barker - Claims 13 and 16 are obvious over DeKoning in view of Barker.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: DeKoning (Patent 6,691,245) and Barker ("Storage Area Network Essentials: A Complete Guide to Understanding and Implementing SANs").

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that DeKoning teaches a system for periodic data synchronization between a local and remote device using "checkpoints" and copy-on-write procedures. However, DeKoning does not disclose the specific format of its "checkpoint information" as comprising a point-in-time copy and a map. Barker, a textbook on storage area networks, was argued to supply these missing details. Barker explicitly describes a copy-on-write checkpoint as a "frozen image" containing a "changed data area" (a point-in-time copy) and a "changed data list" (a storage volume map). Barker further discloses extent-based file systems, teaching limitation [F].
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine DeKoning and Barker because both address the same problem of disaster recovery and data availability. A POSITA implementing DeKoning's general synchronization method would naturally consult a standard reference like Barker for well-understood implementation details, such as the specific structure of a copy-on-write checkpoint. This would lead them to substitute Barker's detailed checkpoint for DeKoning’s generalized "checkpoint information."
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner claimed the combination would be predictable, as it involves implementing a general concept from DeKoning (periodic synchronization via checkpoints) using a standard, well-documented structure for those checkpoints from Barker.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on combinations of Ohran or Kleiman with Barker or Preston, all relying on a similar design choice rationale of substituting a known extent-based file system to supply the "extent" limitation for performance or reliability reasons.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Storage Object": Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean a structure comprising a "point-in-time copy" of a storage volume and a "storage volume map." This construction was critical to Petitioner's strategy of mapping distinct components from the prior art (e.g., Ohran's snapshot and its separate maps) onto the two required elements of the claimed "storage object."
  • "Replicating said Storage Volume": Petitioner proposed a broad construction of this term as "updating a second storage volume to cause the second storage volume to be consistent with a first or primary storage volume." This broad interpretation was necessary to argue that prior art systems described as "backup" systems (like Ohran) performed the claimed "replication."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 13 and 16 of Patent 7,191,299 as unpatentable.