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 replication technique for maintaining a replica of a primary data source at a secondary site to minimize data loss. The claimed invention replaces prior art replication logs with a "storage object" that contains both a point-in-time copy of the primary data volume and a map of changes made to that volume.

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, which describes a system for backing up a primary mass storage device, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims except for storing data using "extents." Ohran’s system uses a "static snapshot" (the claimed point-in-time copy) and tracks changes in a map (the claimed storage volume map) to update a backup device. Petitioner asserted that Veritas, an administrator's guide for a file system, explicitly teaches the missing element: an extent-based file system where data is stored using an "extent" defined as an "address-length pair," which directly corresponds to the claim limitation requiring a reference to a modified region and a length.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to substitute the extent-based file system of Veritas into the system of Ohran to achieve performance improvements. Petitioner noted that Ohran sought to improve the performance of backup systems, and Veritas explicitly describes its extent-based file system as providing performance enhancements over traditional block-based systems by addressing I/O overhead and improving throughput for large files.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended the combination would yield predictable results because Ohran's backup method operates at the storage-volume level, making it agnostic to the underlying file system. Therefore, substituting a more efficient, extent-based file system would have been a straightforward modification.

Ground 2: 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 asserted that Kleiman teaches a system for duplicating a file system using volume mirroring. Kleiman’s system creates a "storage object" that includes a snapshot (the claimed point-in-time copy) and a "mark-on-allocate" storage image (the claimed storage volume map) to track incremental changes. As with the Ohran-based ground, Petitioner argued Kleiman teaches all elements except for the specific requirement of storing modified regions as an "extent" comprising a reference and a length. Veritas was again cited to supply this missing limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kleiman and Veritas for performance improvement. Kleiman acknowledged that prior art backup systems were "relatively awkward and slow." Petitioner argued that a POSITA, aware of these limitations, would look to known solutions like the extent-based file system described in Veritas, which was designed to overcome such performance issues. The substitution would be predictable, as extents are an internal file system mechanism that does not alter the external interface for applications like Kleiman's.

Ground 3: 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 discloses a host-initiated periodic data synchronization system using "copy-on-write" procedures to create "checkpoint information" for disaster recovery. However, DeKoning does not detail the format of this checkpoint information. Petitioner asserted that Barker, a general guide on storage area networks, fills this gap by describing that a popular "copy-on-write" technique creates checkpoints (or snapshots) that function as a "frozen image" of data. Barker’s checkpoint explicitly includes a "changed data area" (the point-in-time copy) and a "changed data list" that records addresses of changed data (the storage volume map), thereby teaching the complete structure of the claimed "storage object."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to implement a robust disaster recovery system would be motivated to combine the teachings of DeKoning and Barker. Both references address the same problem of minimizing data loss and improving data availability. Petitioner argued that a POSITA implementing DeKoning’s periodic synchronization would naturally consult a reference like Barker for well-known and detailed implementations of "copy-on-write" checkpoints, making the combination a predictable application of known technologies to solve a common problem.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of Ohran or Kleiman with Barker or Preston, all of which relied on a similar rationale of substituting a known extent-based file system to gain performance or reliability benefits.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Replicating said Storage Volume": Petitioner proposed that this term should be interpreted broadly as "updating a second storage volume to cause the second storage volume to be consistent with a first or primary storage volume." This construction supports applying the claims to prior art backup and mirroring systems.
  • "Storage Object": Petitioner argued this term comprises a "point-in-time copy" and a "storage volume map." The point-in-time copy was construed to cover both full copies and "changed-block" copies (which only store data that has been modified). The "storage volume map" was construed as any structure used to identify changes to a storage volume. These constructions were central to mapping the components of the prior art systems to the claim limitations.

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.