PTAB

IPR2017-00374

EMC Corp v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Software-Based Network Attached Storage Services Hosted on Massively Distributed Parallel Computing Networks
  • Brief Description: The ’827 patent discloses systems and methods for aggregating unused or under-utilized storage resources from a plurality of distributed, network-connected devices (e.g., desktop PCs) and presenting them as a virtual network attached storage (NAS) system. Software agents on the devices assess available storage and enable the devices to mimic dedicated NAS hardware.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over OceanStore - Claims 1, 3-9, 13, and 15-21 are anticipated by OceanStore under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kubiatowicz, John et al., “OceanStore: An Architecture for Global-Scale Persistent Storage” (Nov. 2000) (“OceanStore”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that OceanStore, a pre-filing date publication describing a global-scale persistent storage utility, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. OceanStore teaches a distributed system of devices (servers, desktop workstations) that pool their excess storage capacity for network use. The software running on these devices constitutes the claimed "client agents" and "software-based NAS components." This software inherently assesses unused storage to make it available to the network. OceanStore devices are made to "mimic" dedicated storage servers by providing familiar interfaces or "facades" (e.g., a Unix file system) to users. Crucially, Petitioner asserted that OceanStore’s distributed data location algorithms (including an attenuated Bloom filter and a Plaxton-based global routing mechanism) teach the "location distributed device" limitation of independent claims 1 and 13, as these algorithms require nodes to store and use location/routing information to find data across the network.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that the ’827 patent’s claims were only allowed after adding the "location distributed device" limitation, and that OceanStore explicitly "tackles the problem of data location head-on" with multiple distributed mechanisms that satisfy this element.

Ground 2: Obviousness over OceanStore and Condor - Claims 4, 6-7, 16, and 18-19 are obvious over OceanStore in view of Condor under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: OceanStore and Litzkow et al., “Condor – A Hunter of Idle Workstations,” Computer Sciences Technical Report #730 (1987) (“Condor”).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was asserted as an alternative to anticipation for several dependent claims that require management of the NAS service by a "centralized server." Petitioner argued that while OceanStore provides the foundational distributed storage system, Condor explicitly teaches using a "central coordinator" to manage networked resources. Condor’s central coordinator allocates capacity from idle workstations and tracks available resources, including "how much disk space [was] available on each workstation." Petitioner contended that Condor’s teachings directly supply the "centralized server" limitation for managing storage allocation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine OceanStore’s distributed storage architecture with Condor’s centralized management model to achieve the well-known benefits of centralized coordination. Condor itself discusses the known advantages and disadvantages of both centralized and distributed approaches, making the combination a predictable design choice to improve resource management in a system like OceanStore.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as combining a known centralized management technique with a distributed system was a well-understood engineering approach at the time, involving predictable tools and yielding predictable results.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an alternative obviousness challenge (Ground 2) to all challenged claims based solely on OceanStore. This ground argued that if the terms "agent" and "component" were construed to require specific software architectures not literally disclosed in OceanStore, it would have been obvious for a POSITA to implement OceanStore’s functionality using well-known agent- and component-based software design principles.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "NAS device": Petitioner proposed the construction "a device that makes data storage resources available to network-connected user devices." This broad construction, taken directly from the ’827 patent’s specification, was important for arguing that the general-purpose computers and servers in the OceanStore system met the definition of a "NAS device" when running the OceanStore software.
  • "representing with the corresponding software-based NAS component that the selected distributed devices respectively comprise NAS devices": Petitioner proposed the construction "using the corresponding software-based NAS components of the selected distributed devices to mimic dedicated NAS devices." This construction was based on specification language stating the devices can "act as" or have the "appearance of" a NAS device, and was used to argue that OceanStore’s software, which allowed workstations to function as network storage servers, met this limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3-9, 13, and 15-21 of the ’827 patent as unpatentable.