Free Reply to Opposition - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 1 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

MARK D. FOWLER, Bar No. 124235 [email protected] CLAYTON THOMPSON (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) [email protected] DAVID ALBERTI, Bar No. 220625 [email protected] CHRISTINE K. CORBETT, Bar No. 209128 [email protected] YAKOV M. ZOLOTOREV, Bar No. 224260 [email protected] CARRIE L. WILLIAMSON, Bar No. 230873 [email protected] DLA PIPER US LLP 2000 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2214 Tel: 650.833.2000 Fax: 650.833.2001 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP WEST\21484902.1

NETWORK APPLIANCE, INC., Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant, v. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

CASE NO. C-07-06053-EDL SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF Claim Construction Hearing: Date: August 27, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Judge: Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 2 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. II. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 U.S. PATENT NO. 5,819,292 ............................................................................................ 1 A. "non-volatile storage means" .................................................................................. 1 1. The Term "Nonvolatile Storage Means" Is Presumptively A MeansPlus-Function Limitation. ........................................................................... 1 2. The Claims Do Not Recite Sufficient Structure To Rebut The Presumption That Section 112(6) Governs ................................................. 2 3. NetApp's Reliance On Dr. Brandt's Testimony Is Misplaced.................... 5 4. The Use Of "Nonvolatile Storage" In The Other Cited Patents And Publications Is Irrelevant ............................................................................ 6 5. NetApp's Construction Is Incorrect Because It Captures Subject Matter Outside The Scope Of The '292 Patent........................................... 7 6. NetApp's Criticisms Of Sun's Analysis Are Unfounded ........................... 8 B. "meta-data for successive states of said file system".............................................. 9 1. NetApp Disregards The Language Of Claim 8........................................... 9 2. Sun's Construction Is Consistent With The Dependent Claims ............... 12 3. Sun's Construction Gives Proper Weight To The Claim Language And The Specification .............................................................................. 13 C. "file system information structure"....................................................................... 15 1. Only Sun's Construction Is Consistent With Claim 4 .............................. 15 2. Only Sun's Construction Is Consistent With Claims 5, 6 And 7 .............. 16 3. Only Sun's Construction Is Consistent With The Specification Viewed From The Perspective Of Ordinary Skill In The Art................... 16 U.S. PATENT NO. 6,892,211 .......................................................................................... 19 A. "pointing directly and indirectly to buffers in said memory and a second set of blocks on said storage system" ......................................................................... 19 1. NetApp Rewrites Plain Claim Language .................................................. 20 2. The Claim Language Cited By NetApp Supports Sun's Construction .............................................................................................. 20 3. NetApp's Construction Is Not Supported By The Specification .............. 21 B. "root inode"........................................................................................................... 22 1. Any Distinction Between The Incore And On-Disk Root Inodes Is Irrelevant For Claim Construction ............................................................ 22 2. NetApp's Arguments Regarding The fsinfo Structure Are Irrelevant ...... 23 3. NetApp's Construction Is Not Supported By The Specification .............. 23 4. Sun's Construction Recognizes True Scope Of Claimed Invention ......... 25 C. "state of a file system" / "consistent state" ........................................................... 26 -iWEST\21484902.1

III.

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 3 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page IV. U.S. Patent No. 7,200,715................................................................................................. 28 A. "associating the data blocks with one or more storage blocks across the plurality of stripes as an association" / "the association to associate the data blocks with one or more storage blocks across the plurality of stripes"............... 28 1. The Claims Are Indefinite Under 35 U.S.C. §112(2) ............................... 28 2. NetApp's Arguments Confirm The Claims Are Indefinite....................... 29 3. Sun's Alternative Construction Is The Only Construction Consistent With The Specification............................................................ 31 4. The Prosecution History Supports Sun's Construction............................. 32 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 34

V.

-iiWEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 4 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Accumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007)........................................................................................... 12 AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Communications, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007)......................................................................................... 15 Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002)........................................................................... 1, 3, 30, 31 Alloc, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Com'n, 342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................... 25, 26 Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................................................................... 1, 3, 6, 7 Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................... 28 Apple Computer v. Burst.com, Inc., 2007 WL 1342504 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2007) ...................................................................... 5 Bell Atlantic Network Servs. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 17 Biagro Western Sales, Inc. v. Grow More, Inc., 423 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 24 Bicon Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................... 19, 20 Boston Scientific SciMed, Inc. v. ev3 Inc., 502 F. Supp. 2d 931 (D. Minn. 2007) ............................................................................... 14 Catch Curve, Inc. v. Venali, Inc., 2007 WL 3308101 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2007) .................................................................... 5 Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524 (Fed. Cir. 1996)......................................................................................... 4, 7 Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....................................................................................... 1, 2 Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000)....................................................................................... 4, 7 Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572 (Fed Cir. 1996)............................................................................................ 12 -iiiWEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 5 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1995)........................................................................................... 20 Fin Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 21 General Creation LLC v. Leapfrog Enters., Inc., 232 F. Supp. 2d 661 (W.D. Va. 2002) ................................................................................ 5 Geneva Pharms., Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................... 28, 29 Globetrotter Software v. Elan Computer Group, 236 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 16 Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, 91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)......................................................................................... 4, 7 Halliburton Energy Serv., Inc. v. M-I, LLC, 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................... 30, 31 Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 341 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................... 28 Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)......................................................................................... 11 Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................... 20 Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................... 15 J&M Corp. V. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 269 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2001)........................................................................................... 1 J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atlantic Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997)......................................................................................... 15 Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 1999)........................................................................................... 13 Keithley v. Homestore.com, Inc., 2007 WL 2701337 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2007) ............................................................... 4, 5 Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................................................................................... 6 Lottotron, Inc. v. Scientific Games Corp., 2003 WL 22075683 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2003).................................................................... 5 -ivWEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 6 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. Mars, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Kan. 2007) ............................................................................... 14 Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., 525 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................... 15, 25 Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 19 Miken Composites, LLC v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 515 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................... 8, 31 nCube Corp v. SeaChange Int'l, Inc., 436 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006)...........................................................................................26 Network Commerce, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 422 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 24 Nomos Corp. v. BrainLAB USA, Inc., 357 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................... 13 Novo Indust., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................... 28, 29 Nystrom v. TREX Co., 424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................... 8 O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., 115 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1997)........................................................................................... 1 Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)........................................................................................... 8 On Demand Machine Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc., 442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................... 1, 25, 26 Optimal Recreation Solutions, LLP v. Leading Edge Tech., Inc., 6 Fed. Appx. 873 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................... 7 Ortho-McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................... 22 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................... 5, 8, 17, 21 Quantum Corp. v. Rodime, Plc., 65 F.3d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996)........................................................................................... 20 SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 12 -vWEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 7 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., 308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002)......................................................................................... 28 Signtech USA, Ltd. v. Vutek, Inc., 174 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999)........................................................................................... 2 Southwall Tech., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Circ. 1995) ......................................................................................... 20 Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indust., L.P., 323 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................... 33, 34 Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Com'n, 831 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987)......................................................................................... 26 Unidynamics Corp. v. Automatic Prods. Int'l Ltd., 157 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1998)........................................................................................... 2 United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 63 S.Ct. 165, 87 L.Ed. 232 (1942) ...............................................................30 STATUTES 35 U.S.C. §112(2) ......................................................................................................................... 28

-viWEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 8 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

I.

INTRODUCTION This reply brief addresses the construction of NetApp's United States Patent Nos.

5,819,292 (the "'292 patent"), 6,892,211 (the "'211 patent") and 7,200,715 (the "'715 patent"). II. U.S. PATENT NO. 5,819,292 A. "non-volatile storage means" 1. The Term "Nonvolatile Storage Means" Is Presumptively A MeansPlus-Function Limitation.

Reciting the word "means" creates a rebuttable presumption the claim limitation is a means-plus-function limitation under section 112(6). Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). NetApp attempts to sidestep this presumption by noting that not all claim terms reciting "means" ultimately are held to be means-plus-function limitations. However, while the use of "means" does not always result in the Court ultimately holding that section 112(6) governs, the use of "means" does create an initial presumption that the limitation is a means-plus-function limitation. Altiris, 318 F.3d at 1375. The legal authority cited by NetApp confirms this. Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("[t]he use of the word `means' triggers a presumption that the inventor used this term advisedly to invoke the statutory mandate for means-plus-function clauses"). NetApp also makes the unsupported assertion that "means" language does not invoke section 112(6) in method claims. This is incorrect. The Federal Circuit has construed a "means" term in a method claim as a means-plus-function limitation. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1335-36, 1343 n. 1 (Fed. Cir. 2003); On Demand Machine Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc., 442 F.3d 1331, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2006); J&M Corp. V. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 269 F.3d 1360, 1364 n. 1 (Fed. Cir. 2001). NetApp's reliance on O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., 115 F.3d 1576, 1582-83 (Fed. Cir. 1997) is misplaced. There, the Court did not state the use of "means" in a method claim does not invoke section 112(6). Indeed, NetApp cites no case so holding. NetApp also repeatedly suggests, without citing case law, that reciting "means" without also reciting the word "for" precludes application of section 112(6). NetApp Response Brief -1WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 9 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

("NRB") at 2-3. This also is incorrect. The Federal Circuit routinely holds means-plus-function limitations exist where the word "for" is not used. See, e.g., Eaton, 323 F.3d at 1335-36, 1343, n. 1; Unidynamics Corp. v. Automatic Prods. Int'l Ltd., 157 F.3d 1311, 1318-19 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Signtech USA, Ltd. v. Vutek, Inc., 174 F.3d 1352, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 1999). NetApp next argues that section 112(6) does not apply because, according to NetApp, the claims do not recite a function for the "nonvolatile storage means." NRB at 3. This argument is without merit. The expressly recited function of the "nonvolatile storage means" in claims 4 and 8 is to store, namely, to store data blocks of a file system (claims 4 and 8), to store first and second "file information structures" (claim 4), to store "read-only copies of a file system" (claim 8) and to store "metadata for successive states of said file system" (claim 8). '292 patent, col. 25:11-29, 26:1-15. In light of the plain claim language, NetApp's assertion that the "non-volatile storage means" does not perform the recited function of "storing" is nonsense. The "nonvolatile storage means" stores data blocks, file information structures, read-only copies of the file system and meta-data. Id. Indeed, NetApp contradicts its argument that the "nonvolatile storage means" does not perform a function when it later argues that "every single dictionary definition the parties are aware of at least defines `non-volatile storage' . . . in `functional terms.'" NRB at 5. NetApp's argument also is undermined by its own proposed claim construction, which defines "nonvolatile storage means" as a generic "device" "that can" perform the function of "retain[ing] information in the absence of power." Thus, NetApp proposes, on the one hand, that "nonvolatile storage means" be construed to cover any means for performing nonvolatile storage, yet, at the same time, in order to avoid section 112(6), also argues that the "nonvolatile storage means" does not perform storing. This double-talk, if anything, underscores the functional nature of the recited "nonvolatile storage means." 2. The Claims Do Not Recite Sufficient Structure To Rebut The Presumption That Section 112(6) Governs.

In order to rebut the presumption that section 112(6) governs a "means" limitation, the claim language itself must recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function in its -2WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 10 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

entirety. Altiris, 318 F.3d at 1375. The claim language must recite a specific physical structure that performs the function. Id. at 1376. In the present case, however, the claims fail to recite any specific physical structure, much less sufficient structure, for performing the stated functions of the "nonvolatile storage means." NetApp does not deny that the claim language surrounding the recited "nonvolatile storage means" fails to identify any structure to perform the claimed functions. Rather, NetApp asserts the term "nonvolatile storage" itself has a reasonably well-understood meaning in the art and, therefore, according to NetApp, section 112(6) does not govern. NRB at 4-6. This argument ignores that the term "nonvolatile storage" describes a function and not specific physical structure that performs the claimed function in its entirety. Brandt Supp. Decl., ¶ 1; see Altiris, 318 F.3d at 1376. As explained by Dr. Brandt, the term "nonvolatile storage" does not define any particular physical structure or class of devices for performing the recited function to one of ordinary skill in the art. Brandt Supp. Decl., ¶ 1. Accordingly, because "nonvolatile storage" does not connote a specific physical structure, NetApp cannot rebut the presumption that section 112(6) applies to the "nonvolatile storage means" limitation. NetApp asserts "the bar is low" "[i]n determining whether a claim term recites sufficient structure" to defeat the presumption that section 112(6) governs. NRB at 4. NetApp cites no case so stating, and no case so holds. Rather, the authority cited by NetApp states the issue is whether the claim term, "as the name for structure," has a reasonably well-understood meaning in the art. Allen Eng'g, 299 F.3d at 1347. Note the standard is not whether the recited function of the claim term is clear, but rather whether the claim term is itself a "name" for "structure," and whether that named structure is well-understood in the art. NetApp generally points to dictionary definitions in asserting that "nonvolatile storage" is a "name" for a structure well-understood in the art. However, half the definitions cited by NetApp define "nonvolatile memory" rather than "nonvolatile storage." NRB at 4; Ganger Decl., ¶ 12. And many of the definitions of "nonvolatile storage" NetApp does cite merely define the phrase in terms of the function performed by a generic "device" for which no structure is identified. See, e.g., Ganger Decl., ¶ 12 (citing IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and -3WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 11 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

Electronics Terms ["a storage device which can retain information in the absence of power"], Prentice Hall's Illustrated Dictionary of Computing ["a storage device whose contents are not lost when the power is cut-off"]). As such, one cannot conclude from the cited dictionaries that "nonvolatile storage" is a "name for structure" well-understood in the art. NetApp notes that a few dictionary definitions also cite either "magnetic tape," ROM, "bubble memory" or "magnetic core storage" as "nonvolatile storage" (although the list varies from definition-to-definition). Ganger Decl, ¶ 12. Significantly, however, none of the definitions identify hard disk drives, the sole relevant structure discussed in the specification of the '292 patent, as "nonvolatile storage." The fact that hard disk drives are not identified in any of these definitions confirms the dictionaries do not evidence that "nonvolatile storage," as used in the '292 patent, is the "name" of a relevant "structure" well-understood in the art. NetApp's heavy reliance on the Greenberg case is inappropriate as NetApp fails to advise the Court of an important distinction drawn in that case. In Greenberg, the Federal Circuit held the term "detent mechanism" ­ a term that does not use "means" language ­ was not a meansplus-function limitation. Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In its analysis, the Federal Circuit contrasted the term "detent mechanism" with the term "detent means," which was held to be a means-plus-function limitation in an earlier case. Id. at 1584 (citing Interspiro USA Inc. v. Figgie Int'l Inc., 815 F. Supp. 1488, aff'd, 18 F.3d 927, 93031 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). A critical distinction the Court drew between the term "detent mechanism" in Greenburg and the term "detent means" in Interspiro was that the patentee in Interspiro chose to invoke section 112(6) by claiming in means-plus-function format. Id. Here, like the "detent means" in Interspiro, "nonvolatile storage means" is claimed in mean-plus-function format. The other cases cited by NetApp also are inapposite. In Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524 (Fed. Cir. 1996), the claims included "a detailed recitation of [the claim term's] structure." Id. at 531. In Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000), the Court similarly concluded "the claims recite sufficient structure, including details about the location and formational details about the second baffle." Id. at 1365 ("the claims describe the particular structure of this particular baffle"). Likewise, in Keithley v. -4WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 12 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

Homestore.com, Inc., 2007 WL 2701337 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2007), the Court found the "corresponding structure . . . is evident" from the surrounding claim language. Id. at *20. No such "detailed recitation," "particular[ized] structure" or "corresponding structure" ­ or any structure for that matter ­ is present in the claims of the '292 patent. NetApp also relies upon the Southern District of New York ruling in Lottotron, Inc. v. Scientific Games Corp., 2003 WL 22075683 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2003), which addressed the term "storage means." As an initial matter, claim terms must be evaluated within the context of the patent in which they are found. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Accordingly, it is not surprising that claim terms are assigned different constructions in different patents involving different technology. The holding in Lottotron regarding "storage means" is not persuasive authority regarding "nonvolatile storage means" for several additional reasons. First, the two terms are not the same. Second, the "storage means" in Lottotron involved a completely different technical context ­ the patent in Lottotron involved a lottery wagering system, not the file systems of the '292 patent. Lottotron, 2003 WL 22075683 at *1. Third, neither party in Lottotron contended the claimed "storage means" was a means-plus-function limitation. Id. at *7. Fourth, while NetApp cites Lottotron, it ignores three other District Court cases holding that "storage means" is a meansplus-function limitation. Catch Curve, Inc. v. Venali, Inc., 2007 WL 3308101 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2007) ("mass storage means"); Apple Computer v. Burst.com, Inc., 2007 WL 1342504, *21-22 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2007) ("storage means"); General Creation LLC v. Leapfrog Enters., Inc., 232 F. Supp. 2d 661, 674-78 (W.D. Va. 2002) ("memory storage means"). In Apple, this Court concluded: "[T]he description of storage as a `memory device' underscores the conclusion that `storage' is a functional term. A memory device does not connote a particular structure . . ." Apple, 2007 WL 1342504 at *21 (citations omitted). The Court's conclusion in Apple is the same as Sun's position here. 3. NetApp's Reliance On Dr. Brandt's Testimony Is Misplaced.

NetApp asserts the declaration testimony of Dr. Brandt supports NetApp's argument that "nonvolatile storage means" is a name for structure well-understood in the art. NRB at 6-7. -5WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 13 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

However, the testimony relied upon by NetApp (1) does not mention "nonvolatile storage" and (2) involves an analysis of the specification of the '292 patent. Brandt Decl., ¶¶ 101, 77-86. NetApp's reliance on testimony concerning conclusions drawn from the detailed teaching of the specification is, to say the least, ironic, as Sun's construction is premised upon the teaching of the specification, while NetApp seeks a construction completely unfettered by the teaching of the specification. Indeed, because reviewing the specification is required to give "nonvolatile storage means" meaning in the context of the claims, that term is not a "name" for "structure" wellunderstood in the art. Altiris, 318 F.3d at 1375-76. 4. The Use Of "Nonvolatile Storage" In The Other Cited Patents And Publications Is Irrelevant.

NetApp cites six Sun patents and two publications by Dr. McKusick that use the term "nonvolatile storage," some of which include examples of devices that can perform the function of nonvolatile storage. NRB at 6-8. Again, as an initial matter, none of these patents or publications is competent evidence of the understanding in the art at the time the application for the '292 patent was filed as they all post-date the filing. Moreover, the fact that one can provide examples of devices that can perform a function, such as "storage," does mean that the function connotes a specific physical structure that performs the function, thereby excluding it from the scope of section 112(6). For instance, one can provide examples of devices that can perform the function of storage, e.g., disks, punch cards, paper, semiconductor memory devices, etc., yet, as established above, three different District Courts determined the term "storage means" is governed by section 112(6). The cases cited by NetApp in connection with its citation to the Sun patents (and to Dr. Brandt's declaration testimony) are inapposite. To support its contention that this evidence "merely proves that the term [nonvolatile storage means] has a broad meaning, not that it is a means-plus-function limitation," NetApp first cites Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, the cited passage in Linear does not stand for this proposition and, in fact, pertains to identifying the "corresponding structure" of a claim term that already was held by the Court to be governed by section 112(6). Id. NetApp next cites a -6WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 14 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

case the Federal Circuit did not designate as citable precedent, Optimal Recreation Solutions, LLP v. Leading Edge Tech., Inc., 6 Fed. Appx. 873, 878 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Even if Optimal could be cited as precedent, the claim terms in Optimal were, unlike the "nonvolatile storage means," the names of structures. Id. NetApp also cites Greenberg, which, as established above, distinguished "detent means" (governed by section 112(6)) from "detent mechanism" (not governed by section 112(6)). Moreover, none of the cases cited by NetApp alters the basic rule stated by the Federal Circuit in Altiris that the presumption that requires NetApp to identify a specific physical structure sufficient to perform the claimed function in its entirety. Altiris, 318 F.3d at 1375-76. In Altiris, the Court noted, in citing the Envirco and Cole cases discussed above: "In the cases where we have found sufficient structure in the claims, the claim language specifies a specific physical structure that performs the function." Id. at 1376. Thus, if, as is instead the case here, "one must still look to the specification for an adequate understanding of the structure," the claim term is governed by section 112(6). Id. 5. NetApp's Construction Is Incorrect Because It Captures Subject Matter Outside The Scope Of The '292 Patent.

NetApp criticizes Dr. Brandt for identifying examples of devices that perform nonvolatile storage that are outside of the scope the '292 patent. For example, Dr. Ganger states "Sun and Dr. Brandt go too far in suggesting that relevant `non-volatile storage' includes things like `paper' and `film' simply because they retain data in the absence of power." Ganger Decl., ¶ 17. Dr. Ganger then states that certain devices that retain data in the absence of power, such as paper and film, are outside of the context of the '292 patent. Ganger Decl., ¶ 17. By admitting that not all devices that retain information in the absence of power should be considered "nonvolatile storage" in the context of the '292 patent, NetApp highlights the inherent problem with its proposed construction ­ it captures subject matter outside of the scope of the '292 patent. Because NetApp's proposed construction of "nonvolatile storage means" ­ i.e., "a storage device that can retain information in the absence of power" ­ covers subject matter, such as paper and film, that it admits is outside of the context of the specification or file history, it violates the -7WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 15 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

fundamental principles of Phillips. See Miken Composites, LLC v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 515 F.3d 1331, 1336-38 (Fed. Cir. 2008), quoting Nystrom v. TREX Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1145-46 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("broadening of the ordinary meaning of a term in the absence of support in the intrinsic record indicating that such a broad meaning was intended violates the principles articulated in Phillips, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)"). 6. NetApp's Criticisms Of Sun's Analysis Are Unfounded.

NetApp criticizes Sun's construction by arguing the stated function of the "nonvolatile storage means" is merely "storing information so that the information is not lost in the absence of power." NRB at 9. This assertion is incorrect because it disregards the other claim language identifying the specific functions of the nonvolatile storage means. As established both above and in Sun's opening brief, the claim language at a minimum discloses the function of storing blocks of data for a file system. Sun Br. at 9. NetApp next argues that the "corresponding structure" in the specification identified by Sun is too narrow. This also is incorrect. Sun's proposed corresponding structure includes the only embodiment described in the specification for storing data blocks so that the data is not lost in the absence of power, i.e., one or more disks with a block-based format (i.e., 4 KB blocks that have no fragments) where the disk storage blocks are the same size as the data blocks of the file system. Sun Br. at 9-10. In fact, although the Court is required to identify the corresponding structure in the specification, and although NetApp challenges Sun's identification, NetApp never identifies where in the specification it contends the corresponding structure is located. Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Rather than citing corresponding structure in the specification as required, NetApp appears to contend the test is what structure an expert believes is minimally necessary to perform the recited function. NRB at 9. This is not the law ­ the focus of the inquiry is on the corresponding structure identified in the specification. Omega, 334 F.3d at 1321. NetApp criticizes Sun for identifying as "corresponding structure" structures resulting from the use of WAFL. NRB at 10. However, identifying the corresponding structure in the context of WAFL is necessary because the specification only describes the invention in the -8WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 16 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

context of the structures imposed by WAFL. Brandt Decl., ¶ 67; '292 patent, col. 5:45-6:52, 6:53-8:56, 8:57-9:17, 9:18-11-27, 11:28-58, 11:62-17:63, 17:64-24:6. Fundamental to the operation of WAFL is "a disk format system that is block based (i.e., 4 KB blocks that have no fragments)." Brandt Decl., ¶ 67; '292 patent, col. 5:48-53. WAFL applies this format to the disk so that it is prepared to store 4KB storage blocks corresponding to the 4KB data blocks. Brandt Supp. Decl., ¶ 7. Thus, because Sun's construction describes the most basic structure of the formatted disk, NetApp is incorrect in asserting that the "corresponding structure" in Sun's proposed construction "do[es] not even pertain to a `non-volatile storage' device.'" NRB at 10. NetApp also criticizes Sun's construction because it does not identify all the requirements of WAFL ­ such as WAFL inodes and directories ­ as corresponding structure. NRB at 10-11. However, the use of "inodes" and "directories" is not inherently structural and is, therefore, not included in the minimally necessary corresponding structure. In contrast, the block-based disk format is inherently structural because it describes how the underlying disks are formatted. Brandt Supp. Decl., ¶ 7. B. "meta-data for successive states of said file system" 1. NetApp Disregards The Language Of Claim 8.

Viewed from any perspective, Sun's construction is mandated by the language of claim 8 and the detailed description of the "present invention" in the specification. Sun Br. at 10-14. Indeed, because the requirements of the claim and the teaching of the specification are clear, NetApp is compelled to fabricate a non-existent distinction between the claim and Sun's construction, i.e., that claim 8 concerns "consistency points" while Sun's construction concerns "snapshots." NRB at 12. This distinction ­ and NetApp's related arguments ­ are without merit. The claim 8 phrase being construed is "meta-data for successive states of said file system." The word "successive" bears on the manner in which the file system recited in claim 8 transitions from one state of the file system to the next state of the file system. '292 patent, col. 4:6-11, 33-43. The successive states of a file system are the current state of the file system and past states of the file system, which may be recorded as "snapshots." Brandt Supp. Decl., ¶ 16; '292 patent, col. 17:66:18-1, 19:20-23, Fig. 18C. Claim 8 requires "storing meta-data for -9WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 17 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

successive states of the file system." Thus, contrary to NetApp's assertion that "the `successive states of said file system' referred to here are consistency points, not snapshots" (NRB at 12), it is clear successive states of the file system refers to both the current state of the file system and snapshots of past states of the file system. While NetApp accuses Sun of "confus[ing] a consistency point with a snapshot" (NRB at 12), it appears NetApp is the one that is confused. In this regard, while Sun's opening brief explains consistent states and snapshots in detail, with specific citation to the specification, NetApp draws its distinction without any specific citation to the specification. Sun Br. at 3-5; NRB at 12. Without repeating Sun's prior multi-page explanation, Sun notes, again, that the current "active" "consistent state" of the file system is defined by the most recent "consistency point." Brandt Supp. Decl., ¶ 18; '292 patent, col. 11:60-12:1, 14:42-44, 17:60-64. The file system can retain copies of past consistent states in a read-only form called "snapshots." '292 patent, col. 4:20-21, 17:64-18:3; Brandt Supp. Decl., ¶¶ 10, 16. A snapshot is similar to a past consistency point. Id., col. 20:21-22, 64-65; Brandt Supp. Decl., ¶ 18. NetApp correctly points out that not all consistency points are preserved as snapshots. NRB at 12. However, the conclusion NetApp draws from this ­ that "Sun's definition fails because it does not encompass meta-data for any consistency points that are not preserved as snapshots ­ is clearly incorrect. Id. In this regard, the parties agree claim 8 consists of a single, three-step process, which claim 8 refers to as "[a] method for creating a plurality of read-only copies of file system," i.e., snapshots. '292 patent, claim 8, col. 26:1-2. The first step in the claimed process is "storing meta-data for successive states of the file system"; the second step is "making a copy of said meta data" to create a snapshot; and the third step is marking the blocks identified by the copied meta-data as comprising the snapshot. Id., col. 26:5-15. NetApp admits, as it must, that the second and third steps pertain to the creation of snapshots (NRB at 13:6-7), and storing the meta-data in the first step enables the creation of the snapshot in the second and third steps. '292 patent, col. 18:21-23; Brandt Supp. Decl., ¶ 10. Thus, this process, by its own terms, pertains only to creating snapshots of successive, current states of the file system. Therefore, claim 8 does not pertain to instances where a consistency point is not saved as a -10WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 18 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

snapshot. Accordingly, Sun's construction does not exclude any aspect of claim 8 ­ and NetApp's observation that not all consistency points are saved as snapshots is irrelevant. NetApp ignores the use of the word "successive" in the claim when construing this limitation and its construction gives the word "successive" no weight. NetApp's disregard of "successive" leads to NetApp's failure to recognize the claim's requirement of a block map file. The block map file is the one and only element of the '292 patent that constitutes the claimed "meta-data for successive states of the file system." Sun Br. at 11-12. NetApp's construction improperly contradicts the patentee's repeated and unqualified statements establishing this. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318-19 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Instead of acknowledging the dictates of the intrinsic evidence, NetApp disassembles this claim term and eyes the word "meta-data" without regard to the remaining claim language ­ "for successive states of the file system." Having stripped it of context, NetApp posits the recited "meta-data" can be anything ­ "an inode file, a root inode, a block map file, an inode map file, inode tables, directories, bitmaps, and indirect block" ­ and, based on Dr. Ganger's supposition, any other unnamed structure. NRB at 13 (citing Ganger Decl., at ¶¶ 29-30). Tellingly, nowhere is there any mention of whether these structures relate to successive states of a file system. That is because only the block map file, among the boundless structures offered by NetApp, is the claimed "meta-data for successive states of the file system." Brandt Supp. Decl., ¶ 15. NetApp's proposed construction also is inconsistent with the language of the claim as a whole. The final limitation of claim 8 recites: "for each of said copies of said meta-data at a respective state of said file system, marking said blocks of said non-volatile storage means identified in said meta-data as comprising a respective read-only copy of said file system." '292 patent, col. 26:11-16. Thus, the "meta-data" must identify blocks within each read-only copy of the file system. According to the '292 patent, the block map file is the unique meta-data that identifies blocks within each read-only copy. Brandt Supp. Decl., ¶ 14. Thus, once again, claim 8 dictates that the "meta-data for successive states of the file system" be the block map file, and not the generic "information" NetApp proposes. NetApp's proposal to substitute generic, unbounded "information" for "meta-data for -11WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 19 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

successive states of the file system" is not supported by any intrinsic evidence ­ and NetApp cites none. Furthermore, replacing the existing specific claim language with generic "information" effectively deletes the "meta-data" limitation from the claim, a practice forbidden by the Federal Circuit. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1578 (Fed Cir. 1996). 2. Sun's Construction Is Consistent With The Dependent Claims.

In an attempt to misapply the doctrine of claim differentiation, NetApp posits that claim 8 under Sun's construction excludes the narrowing limitations of claims 11-13 and 18-19. NRB at 13-14. The obvious flaw in NetApp's argument is that Sun's construction of "meta-data for successive states of a file system" does not exclude the presence of the additional limitations recited in the dependent claims, such as "pointers," "inodes" or "root inodes." '292 patent, col. 26:26-32, 26:50-55. Indeed, NetApp's brief never explains how Sun's construction would preclude the presence of these features in the practice of claim 8. In any event, claim 8 is an open "comprising" claim, so the requirement of a "block map file for recording snapshots of the file system" does not exclude the presence of additional structures. SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278, 1284-85 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (confirming that "comprising" is synonymous with "including" and that "comprising" claims do not foreclose the presence of additional elements). NetApp's argument appears to be based upon the assumption that the use of a "block map file" somehow precludes, from a technical perspective, the presence of the "pointers" and "inodes" of the dependent claims. They do not, nor is one an alternative to the other. Brandt Supp. Decl., ¶ 24. Rather, they must be implemented concurrently, as is reflected by the required addition of these features in the dependent claims. Id. Sun's construction is therefore entirely consistent with the dependent claims, as the additional limitations of the dependent claims narrow claim 8. Accumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 806 (Fed. Cir. 2007). NetApp also invokes claim differentiation with respect to claims 9 and 10, asserting that claim 8 is identical in scope to dependent claims 9 and 10 under Sun's construction. NRB at 1415. NetApp is wrong again. First, NetApp's argument violates long-standing Federal Circuit precedent limiting the doctrine of claim differentiation when applied to means-plus-function -12WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 20 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

claims. Nomos Corp. v. BrainLAB USA, Inc., 357 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim 9 recites a "means for recording multiple usage bits per block . . ." and claim 10 requires the "means" of claim 9 be a block map. '292 patent, col. 26:16-25. These limitations are properly construed as means-plus-function limitations pursuant to section 112(6). Therefore, it is inappropriate for NetApp to argue that the doctrine of claim differentiation requires the claimed meta-data of claim 8 be something broader than a block map. Nomos, 357 F.3d at 1368. Second, NetApp is wrong that claim 8 is identical in scope to claims 9 and 10 under Sun's construction. The block map file of claim 8 may be arranged in any way. Brandt Supp. Decl., ¶ 20. Claim 9, however, expressly limits "the marking of said blocks" of claim 8 by requiring that the marking occur through placing entries in the block map. '292 patent, col. 26:16-21. NetApp acknowledges this additional limitation. NRB at 15. Claim 10 is even more narrow than claim 9 as it requires "multiple bit entries per block." Id., col. 26:24-25. Accordingly, claim 8 is not coextensive with claims 9 and 10 under Sun's construction. 3. Sun's Construction Gives Proper Weight To The Claim Language And The Specification.

As established in Sun's opening brief, the specification repeatedly states "the present invention" uses a block map file, and no other embodiment is disclosed in the specification. Sun Br. at 11-13. NetApp does not ­ and cannot ­ deny either fact. Nevertheless, NetApp contends Sun's construction is improper. NRB at 15-16. Sun's opening brief cites three recent Federal Circuit cases, decided in 2006, 2007 and 2008, holding that where, as here, the specification describes a single embodiment and describes a feature as being part of "the invention," the Court should limit the scope of the invention to that embodiment. Sun Br. at 12-13. Notably, NetApp's brief does not address this recent authority, much less attempt to distinguish it. NetApp instead cites Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999), an earlier case readily distinguishable from the present case. Karlin involved a patent which "use[d] the terms `present invention' and `preferred embodiment' interchangeably." Id. There are no such mixed-messages in the '292 patent, which makes very clear the use of -13WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 21 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

block map files is a necessary feature of "the present invention." Sun Br. at 11-13. The two District Court cases cited by NetApp also are readily distinguishable. In the first case, the Court noted the disputed limitation "is not consistently included throughout the specification." MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. Mars, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1237 (D. Kan. 2007). Here, by contrast, the use of a block map is consistently and exclusively featured in the specification, in addition to being repeatedly described as being part of "the present invention." The second case, Boston Scientific SciMed, Inc. v. ev3 Inc., 502 F. Supp. 2d 931, 940-43 (D. Minn. 2007), is distinguishable from the present case because in that case intrinsic evidence ­ other related patents sharing the same specification and the prosecution history ­ evidenced an intent by the patentee not to limit the scope of the claims. Id. at 942-43. Notably, even Boston Scientific states that characterizing a feature "as part of the `present invention'" is "strong evidence" that the claims should not be read broadly. Id. at 942. NetApp points to a single statement in the specification which notes that although "numerous specific details" are included in the 24 column specification, the invention may be practiced without all of the details. '292 patent, col. 5:36-45. There are, in fact, many details disclosed in the specification. However, the specification only identifies a few specific features as being part of "the present invention" ­ one of which is the use of the block map. As such, these fundamental features do not fall into the category of unnecessary "details." NetApp also asserts the specification describes three different "functions" of the claimed invention. NRB at 16-17. However, it is undisputed the specification describes only a single embodiment of the claimed invention (which has three functions) and that this single embodiment only discloses the use of a block map file as the claimed "meta-data for successive states of the file system." As such, NetApp's observation is irrelevant. NetApp's assertion that the block map file is "updated, but not copied" also is wrong. The patent teaches that the block map file is "updated by copying." Id., col. 13:41-44, 21:53-56. Finally, Sun notes NetApp offers no rebuttal to Sun's showing that the related '352 patent confirms the accuracy of Sun's construction. Sun Br. at 13-14. -14-

DLA PIPER US LLP

WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 22 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

C.

"file system information structure"

The phrase "file system information structure" is not a term known to persons of ordinary skill in the file system art at the time of the '292 patent. Brandt Decl., ¶ 82. The declaration of Dr. Ganger, NetApp's technical expert, acquiesces to this fact, offering no evidence that the phrase bears any meaning outside of the '292 patent. Ganger Decl., ¶¶ 42-52. Absent an accepted meaning in the file system art, "file system information structure" must be construed with regard to the precise definition provided by the intrinsic evidence. Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atlantic Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the claims and specification of the '292 patent unequivocally define the "file system information structure" as the "data structure that contains the root inode of a file in a fixed location on disk." 1. Only Sun's Construction Is Consistent With Claim 4.

NetApp's commitment to its claim construction is surprising given that it results in a claim that reads "said [data structure containing information about the layout of a file system] comprising data describing a layout of said file system ...." See Sun Br. at 17. NetApp does not dispute that this language is repetitive and amazingly argues, contrary to established Federal Circuit precedent, that it is proper to construe one claim term by using other language that "is drawn directly from the language of the claim itself." This is incorrect as a matter of law. AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Communications, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1247-48 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., 525 F.3d 1327, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2008). To no avail, NetApp attempts to distinguish the Federal Circuit precedent cited in Sun's opening brief, including the Mangosoft case. NRB at 19. In its argument, however, even NetApp recognizes that Mangosoft requires a proposed construction be rejected if it "simply restated an implied relationship between the other components of the system." NRB at 19 (emph. added); see Mangosoft, 525 F.3d at 1330-1331. Here, the circumstances of NetApp's proposed construction are even more egregious because its construction merely restates the express relationship between the "file system information structure" and "data describing a layout of said file system" explicitly recited in the claim. Sun's construction, on the other hand, recognizes that -15WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 23 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

the claimed "file system information structure" requires more. Specifically the "file system information structure" is the "data structure that contains the root inode of a file system in a fixed location on disk." Brandt Decl., ¶ 77. 2. Only Sun's Construction Is Consistent With Claims 5, 6 And 7.

NetApp's argument that Sun's construction violates the doctrine of claim differentiation ignores meaningful differences in each of the claims that depend from claim 4. NRB at 19-20. The presence of additional limitations in claims 5, 6, and 7 properly differentiate these dependent claims from independent claim 4. Globetrotter Software v. Elan Computer Group, 236 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that claim differentiation is observed where the "dependent claim [] recites an additional limitation that is not part of [the] independent [] from which it depends ..."). Here, NetApp admits that "[d]ependent claim 5 recites additional limitations for both storing steps in claim 4, namely (1) `storing first and second copies ...' and (2) overwriting the first and second copies ...." NRB at 19. NetApp's reliance on claim 6 also is of no avail because claim 6 depends from claim 5 (with its additional limitations), so claim 6 also must have a different scope than claim 4. Remarkably, what is not recited in any claim depending from claim 4 is a requirement that the one file system information structure be stored in a fixed location on disk when no copies are present. Brandt Supp. Decl., ¶ 33. In contrast to recitation of a single file system information structure in claim 4, the additional limitations of claim 5 add a requirement of two copies of the file system information structure. Thus, NetApp is incorrect that Sun's construction injects limitations from claim 5 into claim 4. It is significant, though, that claims 5 and 6 do confirm to one of ordinary skill in the art that each copy of the file system information structure must be at a fixed, predetermined location. Brandt Supp. Decl., ¶ 31-32. 3. Only Sun's Construction Is Consistent With The Specification Viewed From The Perspective Of Ordinary Skill In The Art.

As detailed in Sun's opening brief, the '292 patent uniformly describes the file system information (fsinfo) structure as comprising the root inode kept in a fixed location on disk. Sun Br. at 14-16. The file system information structure is defined in unequivocal and consistent terms -16WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 24 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

within the '292 patent, for example: · · · · "Fsinfo block 2302 comprises the root inode." '292 patent, col. 16:6 "Two identical copies of the fsinfo structure 1510 are kept in fixed locations on disk" '292 patent, col. 11:3-5. "The root inode is kept in a fixed location on disk referred to as the file system information (fsinfo) block ...." '292 patent, col. 9:33-36 "The root inode 1510B of a file system is kept in a fixed location on disk [and] is part of the file system information (fsinfo) structure 1510 ...." '292 patent, col. 10:58-64

In so stating, the '292 patent sets the outer boundaries of the "file system information structure" as a "data structure that contains the root inode of a file system in a fixed location on disk." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Bell Atlantic Network Servs. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2001)("[W]hen a patentee uses a claim term throughout the entire patent specification, in a manner consistent with only a single meaning, he has defined that term `by implication.'"). NetApp attempts to camouflage the uniform meaning given the file system information structure by grafting miscellaneous information onto it. NRB at 18, 20. First, NetApp plays up miscellaneous information described as being optionally included within the file system information structure. '292 patent, col. 10:64-11:3. This optional data includes "the number of block in the file system, the creation time of the file system," and the check sum. '292 patent, col. 10:64-11:3. However, while this data is described as an option, the '292 patent evidences the clear intent to require the root inode. '292 patent, col. 11:1-3 ("Except for the root inode 1510B itself, this information [the number of blocks in the file system, the creation time of the file system, and the check sum data] 1510A can be kept in a meta-data file in an alternative embodiment.")(emph. added). The '292 patent uniformly requires the root inode be included within the fsinfo structure and be stored in a fixed location. Id., col. 9:33-36, 10:58-64, 11:1-5. Second, NetApp asserts that the file system information structure does not necessarily contain the root inode, and instead supposes that any data structure would suffice. NRB at 20. NetApp references a single sentence from the specification allowing the "root data structure" (not -17WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 25 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

the "root inode") to be "any data structure representative of an entire file system ...." NRB at 20 (citing '292 patent, col. 18:13-16). However, this sentence is not discussing the root inode, but is instead discussing the "snapshot inode." See '292 patent, col. 18:10-12 ("Each snapshot is represented by a snapshot inode that is similar to the representation of the active file system by a root inode."). Contrary to NetApp's mis-citation, the '292 patent consistently emphasizes the importance of the presence of the root inode within the file system information structure. '292 patent, Abstract, Figs. 7, 20C; col. 9:34-36, 10:63-65, 11:20-22, 12:26-37, 13:63-66, 16:6-9. In fact, even NetApp concedes that the "preferred embodiment contemplates that the fsinfo block includes a root inode" and points to no example of the fsinfo block that does not include the root inode. NRB at 20. NetApp characterizes Sun's observation that the '292 patent equates the phrases "file system information structure," "fsinfo block," and "fsinfo structure" as a red herring. However, NetApp's response is the true distraction. NRB at 21. Specifically, regardless of whether they are synonymous, both the fsinfo block and the fsinfo structure are uniformly described as containing the root inode and being stored at a fixed location. '292 patent, col. 9:34-36, 10:5760, 14:3-5. NetApp supposes that the description of the file system information structure (as opposed to a file system information block) refers only to the data structure, and not to a location. NRB at 21. NetApp itself demonstrates the weakness of this point through two concessions and its failure to cite key passages of the specification. First, NetApp concedes "file system information structure" has only one meaning. Id. Second, NetApp concedes that the "`fsinfo block' is synonymous with `fsinfo structure.'" Id. Sun agrees. Of even greater significance, however, NetApp fails to cite the salient portions of the specification where the file system information structure is confirmed to contain the root inode and reside at a fixed location on disk. '292 patent, Abstract, col. 10:57-65, 11:3-5, 12:26-32. Thus, the premise of NetApp's entire argument ­ that the fsinfo structure (as opposed to the fsinfo block) is not identified as being kept at a fixed location on the disk ­ is proven false by unambiguous statements in the specification such as: "[t]wo identical copies of the fsinfo structure 1510 are kept in fixed locations on disk." '292 -18WEST\21484902.1

SUN'S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF CASE NO. C 07-06053 EDL

Case 3:07-cv-06053-EDL

Document 125

Filed 08/01/2008

Page 26 of 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DLA PIPER US LLP

patent, col. 11:3-5. This statem