PTAB

IPR2019-00603

NetApp Inc v. KOM Software Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method of Managing a File Lifecycle
  • Brief Description: The ’234 patent relates to computer-implemented methods for managing the lifecycle of files within a data storage system. The methods use a set of "lifecycle policies" associated with files or storage locations to automate file management tasks, such as migrating a file between different tiers of storage media (e.g., from high-speed to lower-cost archival media) based on criteria like file non-use, while providing transparent access to the file for applications regardless of its physical location.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-7 are obvious over Blickenstaff in view of Crouse

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Blickenstaff (Patent 5,537,585) and Crouse (Patent 5,764,972).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Blickenstaff taught the foundational elements of independent claim 1, including a hierarchical storage system that automatically migrates files based on system-level "rules" (e.g., last access time, available space), which correspond to the claimed "lifecycle policies." Critically, Blickenstaff was asserted to teach providing "transparent access" to these files, as its system creates a "virtual storage capacity" where a processor can retrieve a migrated file "without being aware of the existence of the secondary storage." The petition contended that while Blickenstaff disclosed policy-based migration, it did not explicitly associate its rules with individual files.
    • Crouse was introduced to supply this feature. Petitioner argued Crouse taught an archiving system using a selectable set of "archival attributes" (e.g., "Life Span," "Media Residency") that are specifically "assigned to each remote file" to control its management. The combination of Blickenstaff's transparent, hierarchical migration with Crouse's per-file policy attributes was argued to render claim 1 obvious. The limitations of dependent claims 2-7 (e.g., transferring files between first/last storage media, comparing expiration data) were argued to be taught by Blickenstaff's hierarchy (which includes active file servers and a final "retirement layer") and the inherent logic of applying Crouse's "Life Span" attribute.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the references because they are in the same technical field and address similar problems of file management in networked storage systems. A POSITA would be motivated to modify Blickenstaff's system with Crouse's per-file attributes to gain finer, more granular control over how individual files are migrated, an obvious design choice to achieve the known benefits of per-file policy control explicitly taught by Crouse.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as Blickenstaff already used "data file attributes" to identify migration candidates. Integrating Crouse's teachings was positioned as a "straightforward software extension" of Blickenstaff's existing attribute-based framework that would not require new hardware.

Ground 2: Claims 45-50 are obvious over Blickenstaff in view of Crouse

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Blickenstaff (Patent 5,537,585) and Crouse (Patent 5,764,972).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted independent claim 45, which recited providing a "virtual storage medium having a plurality of storage media." Petitioner asserted Blickenstaff explicitly disclosed this feature, describing its "virtual data storage system" and a secondary storage divided into a "plurality of layers 311-313" comprising different media types (e.g., magnetic, optical). The argument for associating lifecycle policies with this plurality of media was identical to Ground 1: policies from Crouse are stored as attributes with the files, and the files reside on the media, thereby associating the policies with the media. A further limitation in claim 45, determining actions "at intervals," was argued to be taught by Blickenstaff’s disclosure that migration can occur on a "periodically scheduled basis."
    • Motivation to Combine & Expectation of Success: The petition asserted that the motivation to combine the references and the reasonable expectation of success were identical to the rationales provided for Ground 1.

Ground 3: Claims 51, 52-57, and 59 are obvious over Blickenstaff in view of Crouse

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Blickenstaff (Patent 5,537,585) and Crouse (Patent 5,764,972).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged independent claim 51, which required performing policy-dictated actions "upon occurrence of a triggering event." Petitioner argued that Blickenstaff clearly disclosed this by teaching that migration can occur "on a demand basis." Specifically, Blickenstaff described that "when the level of volume utilization exceeds the critical level, the critical migrate job is scheduled for immediate execution." Petitioner contended this threshold-based, on-demand action was a clear example of a "triggering event" that initiates file migration. The remaining limitations of claim 51 were argued to be obvious for the same reasons asserted for claims 1 and 45. Dependent claims, such as claim 57 relating the event to an "amount of free space," were argued to be directly disclosed by Blickenstaff's volume utilization trigger.
    • Key Aspects: To bolster the obviousness arguments across all grounds, the petition also cited additional references, such as the ’522 patent and Cannon (Patent 6,021,415), as evidence that managing and migrating data on an "individual file basis" was a well-known practice, reinforcing the rationale for modifying Blickenstaff.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7, 45-57, and 59 of Patent 7,392,234 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.