Download - United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit … · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. ... SAS Inst., Inc. v

2016‐2017,‐2026,‐2027

INTHE

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

CROSSROADSSYSTEMS,INC.,

Appellant,

v.

CISCOSYSTEMS,INC.,QUANTUMCORP.,ORACLECORPORATION,DOTHILLSYSTEMS

CORPORATION,

Appellees.

AppealsfromtheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOf ice,PatentTrialandAppeal

BoardinNos.IPR2014‐01226,IPR2015‐00825,IPR2015‐00854,IPR2014‐01463,and

IPR2014‐01544.

REPLYBRIEFOFAPPELLANTCROSSROADSSYSTEMS,INC.

JohnA.DragsethRobertCourtneyConradGosenFISH&RICHARDSONP.C.3200RBCPlaza,60South6thSt.Minneapolis,MN55402Telephone:612‐335‐5070

October5,2016 AttorneysforAppellant

Case: 16-2017 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 10/05/2016

i

CERTIFICATEOFINTEREST

CounselfortheAppellantCrossroadsSystems,Inc.certi iesthefollowing:

Thefullnameofeverypartyoramicusrepresentedbymeis:

CrossroadsSystems,Inc.

Thenameoftherealpartyininterestrepresentedbymeis:

N/A

Allparentcorporationsandanypubliclyheldcompaniesthatown10percentormoreofthestockofthepartyoramicuscuriaerepresentedbymeare:

CrossroadsSystems,Inc.hasnoparentcompanyandnootherpubliclyheldcompanyowns10%ormoreofCrossroadsSystems,Inc.’sstock.

Thenamesofalllaw irmsandthepartnersorassociatesthatappearedforthepartyoramicusnowrepresentedbymeinthetrialcourtoragencyorareexpectedtoappearinthiscourtare:

Fish&RichardsonP.C.:JohnA.Dragseth,RobertCourtney,ConradGosen

BlankRomeLLP:RussellWong,JamesHall,KeithA.Rutherford,SteveEdwards,DomingoManuelLlagostera

SprinkleIPLawGroup:StevenR.Sprinkle,JohnL.Adair,ScottS.Crocker,ElizabethBrownFore

FloydWalkerLawFirm:R.FloydWalker


ii

Date:October5,2016 /s/JohnA.Dragseth Signatureofcounsel JohnA.Dragseth Printednameofcounsel


TABLEOFCONTENTS

Page

iii

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1

ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................2

I. ALLTHEINTRINSICEVIDENCEREQUIRESTHATTHEMAPITSELFBEDEVICE‐TO‐DEVICE....................................................................2

A. TheClaimsRequirethattheMapsBeDevice‐to‐Device.......................................................3

B. TheSpecificationDescribesOnlyMapsthatIdentifyBothDevices,WhichWasaDistinctionoverPriorArt..........................................................................................8

C. CiscoRaisedandRaisesNoDisputeAbout“Device‐to‐Device”MappingBeingintheArt.............................................................13

D. CiscoRaisesNoLegitimateDisputeontheDependentClaims..........................................18

II. ANYWAIVERHEREISCISCO’S...........................................23

A. CiscoProsecutedtheIPRonaSingleBasisofRejection,andThatishowtheBoardTreatedIt...................................................23

B. Cisco’sPassageDoesNotIdentifyaSeparateBasisforRejection....................................30

C. WaiverDoesNotApplytoaLesser‐IncludedPointLikeThatRaisedbyCisco...................................................................................35


TABLEOFCONTENTS(cont’d)

Page

iv

D. CiscoProvidesNoOtherBasistoFindWaiver....................................................................36

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................37


TABLEOFAUTHORITIES

Page(s)

v

Cases

ArendiS.A.R.L.v.AppleInc.,__F.3d__,2016WL4205964(Fed.Cir.Aug.10,2016).......................21

InreChu,66F.3d292(Fed.Cir.1995).............................................................................10

CurtisLumberCo.v.LouisianaPac.Corp.,618F.3d762(8thCir.2010)............................................................................29

DellInc.v.AcceleronLLC,818F.3d1293(Fed.Cir.2016)..........................................................................6

HarrisCorp.v.EricssonInc.,417F.3d1241(Fed.Cir.2005).......................................................................36

Indacon,Inc.v.Facebook,Inc.,824F.3d1352(Fed.Cir.2016).......................................................................11

Nystromv.TREXCo.,424F.3d1136(Fed.Cir.2005)................................................................10,11

Prietov.Quarterman,456F.3d511(5thCir.2006)............................................................................35

SASInst.,Inc.v.ComplementSoft,LLC,825F.3d1341(Fed.Cir.2016).......................................................................27

TrusteesofColumbiaUniv.v.SymantecCorp.,811F.3d1359(Fed.Cir.2016).......................................................................11

Wi‐LAN,Inc.v.KilpatrickTownsend&StocktonLLP,684F.3d1364(Fed.Cir.2012).......................................................................36

OtherAuthorities

37C.F.R.§42.23(b)(2015).....................................................................................27


1

INTRODUCTION

Ciscolargelyavoidsthemeritsofthisappealbecauseithasno

legitimateposition.Thereisnotruedisputeaboutwhatthepriorart

shows.ThequestionfortheCourtisthelegalquestionofwhatthe

patentclaimsdefine.

Theanswerisplainbecausetheclaimsrequirethatthemap

itselfreachfromdevice‐to‐device.Itisnotenoughsimplythatdata

reachadevicebyusingamapthatreferencesarouter’sport.The

requirementthatthedevicesberepresentedinthemapitselfis

explicit,itiswhatthedetaileddescriptiondescribes,itiscoretothe

invention,andimportantly,itisinconsistentwithallthepriorart.

Cisco’sleadissue(waiver)isasmuchanimproperattemptto

expandthisappealasitssubstantiveargumentisanimproperattempt

toexpandtheclaims.Ciscosaysthereweretwowhollyseparateand

distinctbasesofrejectionintheIPR—thoughCisco’sPetitionwasnot

soformed,andtheBoarddidnotinstituteontwobases(bothpoints

Cisconevermentions).Andthecontextoftheshortpassageonwhich

Ciscoreliessuggestsnosuchresult.TheBoard’sownrulesanddue


2

processwouldnotpermitrulingsontwodifferentbases;theBoard

neverusedheadingsorwordstosetofftwoissues;thepassagein

questionisexplicitlypremisedonaportionofCisco’spetitionthat

undoubtedlydidnotraisetwogrounds;Cisco’sexpertneverreliedon

theHPJournalforthemappinglimitations;andnoothercontext

suggestsexistenceoftwodistinctrejections.Rather,theBoardinthat

passagesimplyprovidedarationaleforitssinglemainpoint,which

itselfwaspremisedonerroneousexpansionoftheclaimconstruction.

Iftherewaswaiver,itwasbyCisco,whenitomittedthesegrounds

fromitsPetition.

ARGUMENT

I. ALLTHEINTRINSICEVIDENCEREQUIRESTHATTHEMAPITSELFBEDEVICE‐TO‐DEVICE

Thedisputeinthiscaseisaboutclaimconstruction—whether

theclaimsrequiredevice‐to‐devicemapping.Cisco’spositionisthat

theclaimsaresatisfiedwheneverdatamovesfromonedeviceto

another,howeverthatmightoccur.Butthe’035,’041,and’147

patentsarenotthatbroad.Rather,alltheintrinsicevidencerequires


3

thattheclaimed“map”itselfidentifytheenddevices(e.g.,byaname

orID).Thisdenovoissuecompelsreversal.

A. TheClaimsRequirethattheMapsBeDevice‐to‐Device

Asexplainedinouropening,theclaimsexplicitlyrequiredevice‐

to‐devicemapping,notjustthatdataflowbetweentwodevices:

anaccesscontroldevice...operableto:mapbetweentheatleastonedeviceandastoragespaceontheatleastonestoragedevice;...

’147patent,cl.21,Appx19703.Thisisnotarecitationthatthesystem

merelyneedstocauseadevice‐to‐deviceconnectiontobemade—

whichisCisco’sposition.Theclaimsontheirfacearemorespecific.

Theconnectionmustbeexpresslyrecitedwiththemap—i.e.,the“at

leastonedevice”andthe“storagespaceontheatleastonestorage

device”mustbeidentifiedinamap(e.g.,throughalogicalname).The

claimsdonotallowthemaptobesomethingotherthanthoseend

devices,suchasaport.

Byanalogy,arailroadmapdepictingonlyasetoftracks,butnot

arailroadswitchoradditionaltracksinstalledafterthemapwasmade,

isnota“map”tocitiesthatappearnowhereonthemap.Thatistrue

evenifthecitiesmaybereachedbythelater‐installedtracksandby


4

someonephysicallyconnectingthetracksproperlyviatheswitch.In

otherwords,justbecausetravelersorproductscangettocities

outsidethemapdoesnotmeanthatthoseothercitiesare“mapped”by

amapthatdoesnotshowthem.Or,usingtheexplicitlanguageof

claim21,suchamapdoesnotextend“betweenatleastone[city]and

...atleastone[othercity].”Andsuchamapcertainlydoesnotachieve

thegoalsoflettingamapmakercontrolpreciselywhatcanandcannot

befoundusingthemap(forflexibility,security,andbeingableto

controlwhichcityisreached)—theexplicitly‐identifiedgoalsofthe

claimeddevice‐to‐devicemapping.

Ciscorepeatedlyassertsthatthepatentsdonotstate“how”the

patenteddevicemustestablishthe“device‐to‐device”relationship,and

defendstheBoard’sDecisionswiththatassertion.E.g.,RedBr.7,12.

Butthatiswronginacriticalway.Theclaimsandthespecification

bothexplainthattheconnectionismadebyamapidentifyingthetwo

devices—i.e.,adeviceatoneendandadeviceattheother.Theclaims

andspecificationthusrecite“how”themapworks,andtheydon’tneed

tosaymore.


5

Inpractice,andasconceivedbytheinventors,recitingthatthe

mapitselfdefinethedevice‐to‐devicerelationshipisvitallyimportant.

Itallowsthemapmakertodefineandredefinetherelationshipsamong

particulardevices(e.g.,byIDssuchasLUNsforstorageorFCWWN

namesforhosts),andnotmerelyamong“ports,”wherethedetailsof

wherethoseportsmightleadissubjecttochangebysomeonefarfrom

themapmaker.Thisallowsforflexibility,security(abilitytolimit

accessonaper‐devicebasis),andtheabilitytohandlemultipledevices

onasingleconnection.E.g.,’147patent,at3:64–5:9,Appx19699–

19700;seealsoid.at2:16–19and43–53,Appx19698;id.at7:3–15,

Appx19701.

Moreover,thepatentsarenot“abstractandnon‐limiting”as

Ciscoasserts(RedBr.7).TheclaimsexplicitlyrecitedetailthatCisco

throughoutitsbrieftriestowipeaway—i.e.,thatthemapitselfdefines

whichdevicesmayconnecttowhichstorage.Ciscoconfuses“non‐

limiting”withunlimited,whichtheclaimscertainlyarenot.

Ciscoduckstheactualclaimlanguage.SeeRedBr.44–48.It

attemptstoconstruetheBoard’sconstruction,andthenshifts


6

immediatelytoitsover‐generalassertionthat“[n]othinginthe

specificationlimitshowtheclaimedmappingmustbeperformed”and

citesdisclaimercases.Id.at45–46.NoneofCisco’sargumentis

germanehere,becausetheclaimsatleastrequirethatthemapidentify

theenddevices,andthatissufficientrecitationof“how”therouter

operatestodistinguishthepriorart.

Cisco’sunderlyingapproachtoclaimconstructionis,intheend,

anefforttorevisit(andrevise)theterm“representation”inthe

Board’sclaimconstruction.ButCiscoimproperlyneglectstoreconcile

itsconstruction‐of‐the‐constructionwiththeactualclaimlanguage.

SeeRedBr.45–48.Thatapproachiswrong—onsubstanceand

procedure.Itiswrongonsubstancebecausetheconstructionis

correctaslongasitisnotexpandedinawaycontrarytotheentire

intrinsicrecord.Itiswrongonprocedurebecauseclaimconstruction

isrevieweddenovo,andthisCourthasrepeatedlyrequiredthatthe

applicationofaclaimconstructionbeconsistentwithclaims’proper

legalmeaning.E.g.,DellInc.v.AcceleronLLC,818F.3d1293,1300–01

(Fed.Cir.2016).Partiesshouldnotbeabletoassertthewrong


7

meaningfortheclaimsofapatent,whetheritisbywronglyconstruing

theclaimsinthefirstinstance,orbylaterpervertingtheproper

applicationofthoseconstructions.

Boileddown,Cisco’sargumentisthatifmappingtoaport

producesthesameresultinacertainsituationasmappingtoadevice,

thenitisequivalenttomappingtothedevice.Indeed,theBoard

admittedthatmappingtoahostchannelismerely“tantamountto

mappingtoaparticularhost”or“ineffect”mapping,Appx20—notthat

theyarethesamething.Thereisanactualandimportantdifference,

andCiscocannotusesleight‐of‐handtomakethemsynonyms,e.g.,by

constructinganinstanceinwhichmappingtoaportwereaproxyfor

mappingtoadevice.Evenif“tantamountto”or“equivalent”werethe

standard(itisnot),mappingtoaportisnotequivalenttomappingto

theactualdevicebecauseitdoesnotprovidethebenefitsofflexibility

andsecuritythatthepatentsexplicitlyidentifyfromtheclaimed

mapping—i.e.,thatmultipledevicesonthesametransportmedium

canhaveaccesscontrolledtodifferentstorage.E.g.,’147patent,at

2:43–53,4:41–66,5:5–9,Appx19698–19700.Mappingmerelytoa


8

portmayallowaconnectiontobemadeinasingleparticular

configuration—andso,totheBoard,itmaybe“tantamountto”actual

device‐to‐devicemapping—butthis“tantamount”configurationis

qualitativelydifferentfromthedevice‐to‐devicemaptheclaims

require,andlacksthebenefitsandcapabilitiesthatsuchmapping

provides.

B. TheSpecificationDescribesOnlyMapsthatIdentifyBothDevices,WhichWasaDistinctionoverPriorArt

Notonlydotheclaimsrecitethatthemapitselfpointfromone

devicetoanother,butthatistheonlythingthespecificationsdisclose.

The’147patentuniversallyderogatesthethesisofCisco’sresponse.

Crucially,thesoledisclosedembodiment,i.e.,Figure3,is

fundamentallyincompatiblewiththenotionofusing“channel

numbers”toorganizeanetwork.Inthefigure,any“channelnumber”

wouldbesharedbyalldevices,sincetheyareallconnectedonasingle

physicalcable.Butdespitealldevicessharingasinglecable/channel

number,Figure3depictsdevice‐specifictreatmentofthedevices’

accesstostorage:


9

’147patent,fig.3,Appx19696.Asthefigureshows,eachattached

“workstation”(ontheleft)isonone“channel,”yethasdevice‐specific

accesstostorage(ontheright)becauseofthedevice‐to‐devicemap.

Suchdevice‐specifictreatmentisimpossibleinachannel‐number

basedsystem.Again—forsystemsthatstructurepolicybasedon

“channelnumber,”itisimpossibletoachievethedevice‐specific

treatmentshowninfigure3.

Thisisnotreadingalimitationintotheclaims,asCiscosuggests.

SeeRedBr.48–51.Ciscodoesnotevenaddresstheclaimlanguage

itself,butonlytheBoard’sconstruction.Moreover,Cisco’scentral

argumentisthatCrossroadscannotrelyontheflexibilityandsecurity


10

benefitsoftheinventionwhenthosebenefitsarenotrecitedinthe

claims.RedBr.49.Butwheretheclaimsdoexplicitlyrecitedevice‐to‐

devicemapping(andnotdevice‐to‐portmapping),thebenefitsofsuch

mappingarerelevanttoexplainingthatcentralityofdevice‐to‐device

mappingtotheclaim.See,e.g.,Nystromv.TREXCo.,424F.3d1136,

1146(Fed.Cir.2005)(affirmingclaimconstructionthatreliedon

“advantagesoftheinvention”);seealsoInreChu,66F.3d292,298–99

(Fed.Cir.1995)(benefitsofinventionrelevantevenwhenspecification

doesnotmentionthem).

AsCrossroads’openingbriefdescribed(andCiscodoesnot

dispute),thereisnothinganywhereinthepatentsorfilehistoriesto

supportsuchexpansiveclaimscope.SeeBlueBr.24–28.Ciscotriesto

frametheissueasoneinwhichCrossroadshastheburdentoidentify

anexpressdisavowal,butCiscoignoresthattheclaimshereexplicitly

requirethemaptobedevice‐to‐device,soitisCiscothatwouldneed

showacleardeparturefromtheclaimlanguage.

Moreover,itisbeyondquestionthat,wherethespecification

uniformlyindicateshowtheclaimmustbeinterpreted,thereisno


11

needtofindexpressdisavowal.Nystromv.TREXCo.demonstratesthe

flawinOracle’sreasoning.Nystrom(likeCisco)urgedabroadclaim

interpretation,citingtheabsenceofanycleardisavowal.ThisCourt

rejectedNystrom’sreasoningas“misplaced.”424F.3dat1145.“[A]s

explainedinPhillips,”theCourtwrote,“Nystromisnotentitledtoa

claimconstructiondivorcedfromthecontextofthewritten

descriptionandprosecutionhistory.”Id.at1145–46.1Thus,evenif

theclaimsdidnotexplicitlyrequirethatthemapbedevice‐to‐device,

thatfeatureispartoftheinvention.

Ciscoalsomissesakeydistinctionwhenitreliesrepeatedlyon

thepatents’descriptionofsupposed“intermediateidentifiers.”The

pointthatCiscoducksisthatthethingsitpointstoasintermediate

identifiersinthepatentspecificationsarethingsthatactuallyidentify

thedevicesthemselves,ratherthanidentifyingsomethingelselikea

1Othercasesareequallysupportive.E.g.,Indacon,Inc.v.Facebook,Inc.,824F.3d1352,1358(Fed.Cir.2016)(“[W]eneednotfinddisclaimerwherethespecificationdoesnotpermitabroaderinterpretationoftheseclaimtermsandthetermsotherwiselackanordinarymeaningintheart.”);TrusteesofColumbiaUniv.v.SymantecCorp.,811F.3d1359,1367–68(Fed.Cir.2016)(rejectingargumentthattheabsenceofcleardisavowalrequiredbroadconstruction).


12

routerport.Theyareaddressinginformationforthedevices.E.g.,’147

patent,7:16–18,Appx19701(“[A]ddressinginformationisneededto

mapfrom[FibreChannel]addressingtoSCSIaddressingandvice

versa.”).Sotheissueisnotfinalversusintermediate,butwhetherthe

thinginthemapactuallyidentifiesandsignifiesthedeviceratherthan

someothercomponent,liketherouterport.Thereisnothing

inconsistentbetweentheclaims’requirementthatthemapidentifythe

enddevices,andthemannerinwhichthatidentificationisperformed

inthespecification(andnotperformedinthepriorart).

Intheend,theBoard’sfundamentalerrorwasinholdingthatthe

term“representationsofdevices”couldencompassrepresentationsof

thingsthatarenot“devices.”AndasCrossroadshasrepeatedly

pointedoutwithoutdispute,theCRD‐5500’s“channelnumbers”are

not“devices.”E.g.,BlueBr.52,67.Noraretheyaccuratestand‐ins,or

proxies,for“devices.”Inotherwords,Crossroadsisnottryingto

narrowtheclaimtorequire“immutability.”Crossroadsistryingto

requirethatthe“representationsofdevices”representdevices,and

notsomethingelse.Ifanything,Cisco(andtheBoard)areimproperly


13

expandingtheclaimtocoverstructureswhosecorrespondenceto

“devices”isunreliableandmutablewithoutrestriction.

C. CiscoRaisedandRaisesNoDisputeAbout“Device‐to‐Device”MappingBeingintheArt

Cisco’sbriefconfirmsthatthepartiesdonotdisputethecontent

ofthepriorart.Forexample,totheextenttheCRD‐5500User’sManual

teachesany“map,”itisamapthatassociatesaccessrights(e.g.,the

righttoaccessa“redundancygroup”)withchannelnumbers—i.e.,the

numberassociatedwithaphysicalcable,pluggedintothebackofthe

CRD‐5500device.See,e.g.,BlueBr.33–34.Indeed,bothparties

reproduceanddiscussthesamediagramofthisalleged“map”:

CRD‐5500User’sManualat4‐5,Appx481;seealsoBlueBr.14

(depicting,discussingsame);RedBr.12–13(same).Allpartieshave

thesameinterpretationofthereference—i.e.,usingthetableabove,


14

theCRD‐5500couldsetaccessrulesforwhatevercomputersareon

thatchannel.Itcoulduseother,similarly‐formedtablestosetrules

forotherchannels.CRD‐5500User’sManualat4‐5,Appx481

(describingusingaseparatetable“oneachhostchannel”).Butthe

CRD‐5500hadnoabilitytosetanysortofintra‐channelrules.Any

andallcomputersonone“channel,”beitone,ten,oronehundred,will

receivethesameaccessrightstothesame“redundancygroups.”Cisco

doesnotdisputethis.

Also,whenCisconotesthattheCRD‐5500allowsyouto“assign

redundancygroupstoparticularhost,”RedBr.54(citingAppx447)

(emphasisCisco’s),itignoresthattheCRD‐5500makesitsassignments

tochannels.Thequotedpassageis,withoutdispute,theresultofa

channelbeingassignedinamapandasinglehostbeingconnectedby

anadministratorseparatefromthemapandwithoutbeingreflectedin

themap.Butasnotedabove,mappingtoaportandhopingthatthe

portisconnectedtotherightdeviceissignificantlydifferentfrom

mappingtothedevice.


15

Similarly,thereisnodisputethattheHPJournaldoesnothingto

helpCiscoonthemerits.Significantly,notonceinitsbriefdoesCisco

saythatitoritsexpertarguedthattheHPJournalcanprovidethe

mapping—itinsteadsimplyrepeats,overandover,itsspinofthe

Board’sstatement.

ButasidefromthatstatementbytheBoardnotsettingfortha

separatebasisofrejection(seeinfra),thereisnoevidenceorargument

belowthatthemappingcouldcomefromtheHPJournal.WhatCisco

anditsexpertarguedbelowfortheHPJournalwasthataskilled

artisancouldswaptheFibreChannelcardsfromHPJournalforthe

RAIDcardsintheboxoftheCRD‐5500.ThatisallCiscosaidinits

petitions—itmadenomentionoftheHPJournalbeingrelevanttothe

mappinglimitation.E.g.,‐1226Pet.21–26,Appx158–163.Andwhenit

gottothe“map”limitation,itspokeonlyoftheCRD‐5500User’s

ManualandsaidnothingabouttheHPJournal.E.g.,id.at31,Appx168.

TheBoardcitedtoparagraphs55–61ofCisco’sdeclarationfrom

Dr.Hospodor(andtoCisco’sreplybrief),butthoseparagraphssay

absolutelynothingaboutusingadifferentmappingschemethanthat


16

intheCRD‐5500User’sManual.See‐1226Dec.22,Appx22.Rather,

theyareasgeneralasthePetitionandsimplysaythattheHPJournal

cardscouldbeswappedintotheCRD‐5000box—nothingabout

changinganymap,whichwasnotontheCRD‐5500cardsanyway.‐

1226HospodorDecl.34‐37,Appx339‐342;seealsoCRD‐5500User’s

Manualat4‐5,Appx481(confirmingthatthedeviceitselfmaintains

“HostLUNmappingtables”for“eachhostchannel”);BlueBr.14–15

(discussingsame).IftherewereanyquestionatallfromDr.

Hospodor’sgeneraldiscussionatparagraphs55–61,itisclearedupby

hisdetailedbasesforrejections,whichhesetforthinlengthyclaim

charts.Critically,forallthevarious“map”limitationsacrossthe

claims,hecitedonlytotheCRD‐5500User’sManual’smapping,and

madenomentionatalloftheHPJournal.‐1226HospodorDecl.at51‐

54,Appx356‐359(‘035claim1);seealso‐1463HospodorDecl.at48–

54,Appx9899–9902(’041claim1);‐1544HospodorDecl.at51–55,

Appx20209–20213(’147claim1).GiventhatCisconotablycitestono

actualevidencethatprovidesfactssupportingitsspecialreadingofthe

Board’sopinion,andtheonlylogicalsourceofthatevidencecontains


17

nothing,theBoard’sopinioncannotbeaffirmedevenifCisco’s

interpretationoftheBoard’sopinionisaccepted,becausethereisno

evidenceallforit,letalonesubstantialevidence.

Thereis,infact,goodreasonthatDr.HospodorneversaidtheHP

Journalwouldprovidethemapfortheclaims,thatCisconeverargued

itbelow,andthattheBoardneverheldit.Thatisbecause,asnoted

above,thecombinationCiscoproposedwasmerelytoswapHPJournal

FibreChannelcardsfortheRAIDcardsintheCRD‐5500.Butthemap

isnotlocatedonormanagedbythecards.Itisinsteadinthebox,

awayfromthecards,becausetheboxneedstomanagerouting

betweenthecards.CRD‐5500User’sManualat4‐5,Appx481

(confirmingthatthedeviceitselfmaintains“HostLUNmappingtables”

for“eachhostchannel”);BlueBr.14–15(discussingsame);seealso

‐1226LevyDecl.at32–46,Appx2459–2473(describinghowa

“channelsettings”menuontheCRD‐5500isusedtosetchannel‐

specificmappingdetailsandmaintainthemintheCRD‐5500,including

one“hostLUNmappingtable”foreachchannel).Thus,eveniftheHP

JournalcardswerebroughtintotheCRD‐5500boxandtheaddressing


18

foreachcard,managedbytheTachyonchip,camealong,thatwould

notresultinthemapintheboxbecomingadevice‐to‐devicemap

ratherthanacard‐to‐card/port‐to‐portmap.Ciscoanditsexpert

knewbelowthatsuchanapproachwasnotcrediblesotheydidnot

raiseit,andCiscocannotraiseitforthefirsttimeonappeal.

Withtruefactdisputesnonexistent,thebriefingconfirmsthat

thisappealisaboutanissueoflaw—thepropermeaningtogivetothe

explicitclaimrequirementthatthemapextendsdevice‐to‐device,and

notmerelythatdevicescanbeconnected.

D. CiscoRaisesNoLegitimateDisputeontheDependentClaims

Onthedependentclaims,Ciscorelieswhollyonitswaiver

argumentandtheBoard’sfaultyapplicationoftheclaims.BlueBr.41–

43and56–59.

Ciscoiswrongonwaiverforallclaims,forthereasonsdiscussed

below.

Onthemerits,CiscodoesnotdisputewhatwesayinourBlue

Briefat34–40,butinsteadrepeats,indifferentways,thatidentifyinga

portcountsasidentifyingadevice—orastheBoardsaid,is


19

“tantamountto”or“ineffect”identifyingthedevice.See‐1226Dec.20,

Appx20.Thatisnotenough,particularlywiththesemorespecific

claims.Cisco’stroubleisthatevenifoneexpandstheindependent

claimstoequateachannel‐basedmapwithadevice‐to‐devicemap,

thatexpansiondoesnotworkatallwiththedependentclaimsthat

plainlyrecitethingsthataportdoesnotmatch—i.e.,aunique

identifierforwhateverdevicesareconnectedtoit,anIDthatisa

uniquerepresentationofthedeviceeverywhere(worldwide),and

whereinthemapincludesa“hostdeviceID.”Indeed,ifthatexpansion

isallowedforthedependentclaims,Ciscohasnoexplanationforhow

thedependentclaimsdifferinscopefromtheindependentclaims.

Noneofthereferencesdoes,infact,disclosedevice‐to‐device

mappingwitha“uniqueidentifier,”“worldwidename,”or“hostdevice

ID”asthedependentclaimsrecite—whetherundertheproperreading

oftheclaimsortheBoard’sbroadenedreading.Forthe“unique

identifier”(’041claim14),theBlueBriefexplainsthattheCRD‐5500

channelidentifiersareidentifiersforachannel,andnotunique

identifierstorepresentadevice,astheclaimrequires.SeeBlueBr.35–


20

37.CiscosimplyreliesontheabilityoftheCRD‐5500to“assign

redundancygroupstoaparticularhost”andonthepresenceofAL_PA

identifiersinthepatentspecifications.RedBr.56–57.Thefirst

assertionmissesthepointbecauseitisundisputedthattheCRD‐5500

mapdoesnotassigntheredundancygroupstoauniquehost—rather,

themapassignsthemtoachannel,andtheythengotowhateverhost

orhostsareconnected,whichcouldbeanyhostormultiplehosts,and

notauniquehostidentifiedinthemap.Thesecondassertionmisses

thepointbecausetheAL_PAidentifierdiduniquelyidentifyanend

deviceratherthanjustaport,andCisco’sciteddepositiontestimonyis

nottothecontrary.SeeBlueBr.32‐33.

Forthe“WorldWideNames”requirement(’041claim15),the

CRD‐5500certainlydoesnotsuffice,andCiscotacitlyadmitsasmuch.

TheBoardhadreliedontheCRD‐5500User’sManualasshowingthe

basesystem,ontheHPJournalasshowingaswapforFibreChannel

cardsintothebasesystem,andtheFibreChannelStandardasshowing

howtheFibreChannelwouldwork(becausetheHPJournallackedthat

detail).‐1463Dec.29–31,Appx68–70.Importantly,theBoardnoted:


21

“PetitionersrelyontheFibreChannelStandardasteachinguseof

worldwidenamesinsystemsliketheonethatresultsfromcombining

theCRDManualwiththeteachingsoftheHPJournal.”Id.at30–31,

Appx69‐70.TheBlueBriefexplainsindetailwhytheFibreChannel

Standarddoesnothavesuchateaching,BlueBr.37–39,andCiscodoes

notdisputethattheFibreChannelStandardlackstheteaching.RedBr.

57–58.AllthatCiscoarguesisthatCrossroadsisattackingthe

referencesindividually,butthatiswrong.Crossroadsisinstead

pointingoutthatthereferenceonwhichtheBoardreliedforthe

teachingcontainsnosuchteaching,Ciscodoesnotdisputethatpoint,

andtheteachinghasnotbeenshowntoexistinanyotherreference.

Wherenoreferenceteachesafeature,theBoardoraPetitionercannot

builditoutofthinair.E.g.,ArendiS.A.R.L.v.AppleInc.,__F.3d__,2016

WL4205964,at*8(Fed.Cir.Aug.10,2016)(criticizingrelianceon

reasoningnotdocumentedintherecord).

Moreofthesameforthe“hostdeviceID”claims(’147claim24).

Here,CiscoseekstousetheCRD‐5500User’sManual,butevenifone

believesthatanIDforthechannelontherouterisafairequivalentfor


22

arepresentationofthedevice,itcertainlyisnottheIDofthehost

deviceitself.Inotherwords,thisclaimcannotbestretchedtheway

theBoardstretchedtheindependentclaims.Ciscosuggeststhatthe

userof“portidentifier”intheCrossroadspatentsequatestotheCRD‐

5500’sidentificationoftherouterchannels.Butthisisapplesand

oranges.Theportidentifiersinthepatentsareassignedtotheportsof

theparticularenddevicesandthusdoidentifythoseenddevices.The

CRD‐5500channelsarefixedidentifiersthatatmostrepresentthe

portsoftherouter,andnottheportsofenddevices,andtheydonot

otherwisetellauseranythingaboutanenddevicethatmightcurrently

beconnectedtotheportbecausesuchadevicecanbeswitchedatany

timewithouttheCRD‐5500systemknowingorcaring.Thesystem

doesnotknoworcarebecauseitonlyidentifiesouttotherouter’sown

channel,andnottotheenddevice.

Inshort,regardlesstheoutcomeoftheclaimconstructionissue,

Cisco’snewwaiverissue(discussedbelow),orthedecisiononthe

validityoftheindependentclaims,theCourtmustreversethe

rejectionsofthedependentclaimsbecauseCrossroadsaddressedthe


23

fundamentalproblemswiththeBoard’sreasoning,andCiscodidnot

counterthosepoints.

II. ANYWAIVERHEREISCISCO’S

CiscobroughtthisIPRandargueditonasinglebasis,andthe

Boarddecideditonasinglebasis.Ciscotriestoteaseoutawaiver

argumentwheretheBoardneversetoutseparateissues,wherethere

undoubtedlyarenotseparateissues,andwherethereisnoother

reasontoapplytheequitabledoctrineofwaiver.Cisco’stacticisan

attempttogainnewargumentsthatitdidnotmakeintimebelow,and

onwhichithaswaived.

A. CiscoProsecutedtheIPRonaSingleBasisofRejection,andThatishowtheBoardTreatedIt

Thereisnowaiverinthiscaseforthesimplefactthat,until

Cisco’sRedBrief,nooneinthiscaseidentifiedindependentbasesof

rejection—notCisco,notCrossroads,andnottheBoard.Cisco’sentire

waiverargumentbeginsatashortpassageintheBoard’sopinionsthat

startsinthemiddleofaparagraphneartheendoftheBoard’sanalysis

oftheindependentclaims—anoddplacetostartanewand

independentlineofreasoning.SeeRedBr.32(citing‐1226Dec.21–


24

22,Appx21–22).AnditbeginswithacriticalanchorthatCiscowholly

ignoresinitsbrieftothisCourt.

Specifically,thepassageonwhichCisco’sentirewaiver

argumentreliesstartsbynoting:

AsnotedinthePetition(Pet.20‐21),...

‐1226Dec.22,Appx22.TheBoardthenrepeats,initsownwords,

whatisonthosepages.Id.Thosepages—offeredbyCisco,recitedby

theBoard—arethediscussionofthephysicalstructureoftheCRD‐

5500andtheabilitytoputdifferentcards,otherthantheSCSIcards

explicitlydisclosedintheCRD‐5500User’sManual,intheslotsofthe

CRD‐5500:


25

‐1226Pet.20–21,Appx157–158.Suchwasnotaseparateanddistinct

argumentforcombinationbyCiscoatall.Itcertainlywasnota

separateanddistinctbasisofrejectionbytheBoard.Itwassimplya

baseline—recitedbyCisco,repeatedbytheBoard—forCisco’s

ultimateassertionthattheCRD‐5500User’sManualandtheHPJournal


26

werecombinable.Ciscohassimplymanufacturedthewhole

distinctionabouttwoseparateanddistinct“configurations”fortactical

advantageforthisappeal.

CiscosaysnothingtothisCourtaboutitsIPRPetitionwhen

arguingforwaiver.TheRedBriefdoesnotmentionpages20–21ofthe

Petition,whichtheBoardidentifiedasthestartingpointforits

reasoninginthesubjectpassage.AndCisco’somissionleadstoa

severelyimproperframingoftheBoard’sopinion.Properlyread,the

Boardwasnotadoptingaseparateandindependent,andnew,ground

ofrejection.Atbest,itwasrecitingCisco’sreasoning(astheBoard

understoodit).Andthesinglegrounditreferenced,asindicatedbyits

closingcitationtoDr.Hospodor’sdeclaration,wasoneinwhichonly

theCRD‐5500User’sManualwasbeingreliedonforthemapping

limitations,andnottheHPJournal.Seesupraat18‐19.Whenitcame

totheactualgroundofrejection,theBoard’soverallDecisionmakes

clearthattherewasonlyasinglesuchground—thegrounddiscussed

inCrossroads’Bluebrief.


27

NorcouldtheBoardhavedonedifferently.ThenarrativeCisco

promotes—thattheBoardventuredanentiresecondgroundof

rejection—isunsupportedbyeitherthePetitionortheInstitution

Decision.Assuch,theBoardislawfullyproscribedfromproceedingon

argumentsnotdescribedinoneofthosetwofilings.Suchisnecessary

becauseaPatentOwner’slastfilingoccursimmediatelyafterthe

institutiondecision;PatentOwnerhasnoopportunitytoanswernew

issuesinaPetitioner’sreply.TheBoarditselfappliesthisruletoreject

newargumentsraisedinreplybriefs.37C.F.R.§42.23(b)(2015)(“A

replymayonlyrespondtoargumentsraisedinthecorresponding

oppositionorpatentownerresponse.”).AndwhentheBoardfailsto

applyitsownrule,thisCourtpreventsexpansionofissuesbythe

BoardbecausetheAPArequiresnoticeandanopportunitytobeheard,

whichisdeniedtoaPatentOwnerwhenissueschangeafteritfilesits

PatentOwner’sResponse.SeeSASInst.,Inc.v.ComplementSoft,LLC,

825F.3d1341,1351(Fed.Cir.2016).2Thus,notonlydidtheBoard

2ThesituationhereisevenmoreextremebecausethepositionCiscosaystheBoardtookinitsFinalWrittenDecision(thatthemapping


28

notexpandthisIPRfromonebasisforrejectiontotwoafterit

instituted,butitcouldnothavedoneso—apointCiscowhollyignores.

Ifthisalonewasnotenough,everyotherpieceofcontext—again,

allignoredbyCisco—makeplainthattheBoarddidnotmaketwo

whollyseparateanddistinctrejections,nordidCiscoaskforthem.

First,thesentencesonwhichCiscoreliesincludenotransitionterms

(like“also”or“moreover”)toindicatetheBoardwasshiftingfromone

basisofrejectiontoanotherindependentbasis.Second,the

introductorysentencetotheparagraph—whichCiscorepeatedlycrops

fromitsquotesandneveraddresses—framestheissueaddressedby

theparagraphasadisputeaboutwhetherthereferencescanbe

combined,notasaddinganewbasisforrejectionpremisedon

differentdisclosure.Third,nowhereelseintheBoard’sopinionorin

Cisco’sreply(e.g.,intheintroductions,conclusions,orrequestsfor

relief)isthereanydiscussionorevenintimationabouttwobasesfor

rejection.Fourth,neithertheBoard’sopinionnorthereplybrief

limitationistaughtbytheHPJournal)wasnotevenapositionthatCiscooritsexperthadtaken.


29

includeanyheadingsorsubheadingsthatpurporttobreakthebases

forrejectionintotwoparts.Fifth,theconclusionsoftherelevant

sectionsaresingularinnature,andprovidenoindicationthatthere

weremultiplebasesforrejection.‐1226Dec.26,Appx26;id.at27,

Appx27.Ciscoignoresallthiscontextbecausenotasingleindication

inthesurroundingcontextsuggeststhatthereweretwobasesfor

rejectionhere.

Finally,evenif,despiteallthesepoints,thisCourtweretofind

someseparationbetweentwopointshere,itwouldnotbeabasisfora

waiver.Rather,whereatribunaltreatsissuestogetherandthe

argumenttothemis“virtuallythesame,”courtsofappealfindno

waiver.E.g.,CurtisLumberCo.v.LouisianaPac.Corp.,618F.3d762,

770n.2(8thCir.2010)(“Giventhatthedistrictcourt’sorderblended

theseissuesandthattheargumentsarecloselyintertwined,wedecline

toholdthatCurtisLumberwaivedthestandingissue.”).Thus,evenif

oneweretoagreewithCisco’sinterpretationofitsfavoritesentences,

theBoardandCisconevertreatedthiscaseasifthereweretwobases

ofrejection.Waiverisinapplicable.


30

B. Cisco’sPassageDoesNotIdentifyaSeparateBasisforRejection

GiventhatCiscodidnotaskforaseparategroundofrejection,

didnotputinanyevidenceonthegrounditnowsayswasan

alternativeground,andtheBoarddidnotinstituteontwogrounds,it

shouldbenosurprisethatthepassageonwhichCiscoreliesdoesnot

identifyseparateanddistinctgrounds.

ThepassageispartofaparagraphthatopenswiththeBoard

explainingitsviewthatthecombinationoftheCRD‐5500User’sManual

withtheHPJournalwouldbemorecompletethanCrossroadsargued.

TheBoarddidnotframeitsdiscussionwithanystatement,explicitor

implicit,aboutanewanddistinctbasisofrejection.See‐1226Dec.22,

Appx22.Uponsettingthatstage,theBoard’sopinionreferstopages

20‐21ofCisco’sPetitionasthebasisforitsfinding—butpages20‐21

(excerptedinanimageabove)don’tdiscussanycombinationofthe

references,sotheBoardcouldnothavebeenmakingtherethepoint

thatCiscoattributestotheBoardonappeal.3Id.(citingPet.20–21,

3Insomeofthedecisions,theBoardreferstopages20–21ofthePetition.Whilepage20hassomediscussionoftheHPJournal,itis


31

Appx157–158).Thus,whentheBoardreachesthelastsentenceofthe

paragraph,itstatesthecombinedsystem“mapsredundancygroupsto

particularhostsandimplementsaccesscontrolsastaughtbytheCRD

Manual[.]”‐1226Dec.22,Appx22.Sothemapping—thekeyfeature

here—isperformedaccordingtotheCRD‐5500User’sManual.4See

suprasec.I.C(discussingchannel‐basedapproach);seealsoCRD‐5500

User’sManualat4–5(depictingthechannel‐basedalleged“map”ofthe

Manual),Appx705.FurthermentionoftheHPJournalinthepassage

simplyrecognizesthatwhentheFibreChannelcardsareswappedin,

theywilluseFibreChanneladdressing,butthatdoesnotchangewhat

isinthemapwithintheCRD‐5500’smemory,andnotonthecards.

merelygeneraldiscussionaboutwhattheHPJournaldiscusses,andnothingaboutthecombinationofthetworeferences,ortheparticularcombinationthatCiscoarguesforonappeal.

4Asdiscussedabove,itisatthisstagebeyonddisputethatthealleged“map”intheCRD‐5500User’sManualisfoundinadatastructurecalleda“HostLUNMappingTable.”SeeCRD‐5500User’sManualat4‐5,Appx481.IntheCRD‐5500thereisonesuchtableforeach“channel”—i.e.,foreachphysicalcableattachedtotheCRD‐5500device.SeegenerallyBlueBr.13–15.Thereisnodiscussion,anywhereintheBoard’sdecisionortheIPRrecordgenerally,ofalteringthis“multiplemaps,oneperchannel,storedintheCRD‐5500”approach.


32

ThereisnohintintheBoard’sopinionofmodifyingtheCRD‐5500’s

intrinsicallychannel‐basedapproachtomapping.TheBoardnotes

thattheHPJournal’s“FCaddressingcapabilities”couldbeapplied,but

thatisnotaseparate,secondholdingbytheBoard.‐1226Dec.22,

Appx22.Itissimplyastatementthatsuchaddressingcouldbe

implementedonthenetworkinsteadoftheSCSIapproachwiththeold

cards,withtheCRD‐5500User’sManual’smap—withoutan

explanationofhowthatwouldoccur—andnotthatitwouldbea

separateapproachtomapping.

CiscoplacesgreatemphasisontheBoard’sstatementthattheHP

Journalteachingscanbeused“inlieuof”theCRD‐5500User’sManual’s

teachingsasasupposedindicationthattheBoardwastransitioningto

adifferentgroundofrejection.E.g.,RedBr.15,18,20,24,29,32,35,

41.Butthosewordssimplyindicatethefeatureswapfromonecard

typetoanotherthattheBoardwouldmakeaspartofitssingle

combination,notatransitiontoaseparaterejection.Again,contextis

important.CiscostripsitsargumentsofthecontextinwhichtheBoard

madeitsstatement.


33

CiscoplacesperhapsevenmoreweightontheBoard’scitationat

theendofthispassage,seeRedBr.25–27,butthatcitationcritically

hurtsCisco.See‐1226Dec.22(citingtoCisco’sPTABreplyandthe

declarationofitsexpert),Appx22.First,acitationis,atmost,a

synonymforthestatementthatprecedesthecitation;itismere

supportfortheprecedingstatement—i.e.,anassertionthat“hereis

supportforwhatwejustsaid.”Ciscocitesnoauthorityorlogictohold

thatacitationwouldberecognized,byitsnature,asasubstantive

expansionoftheexpresslystatedargument.Andnothinginthe

Board’sopinionwouldindicateitwasmeanttobeanexpansion.

Second,thecitationisnottheBoard’sactualreasoning.Itisatmost

supportforthereasoning,butCiscocannotuseittofillinwhatis

missingfromwhattheBoardhasexpresslystated.Third,Cisco’sbrief

effectivelytreatsthecitationasifitwereanincorporation‐by‐

reference,butthisCourthas,inmultiplesituations,requiredthatan

incorporation‐by‐referencebespecificwithrespecttowhatitpurports

toincorporatesoastoprovideadequatenoticetoareader.Fourth,

thecitationtothereplybriefistotheentiretyofCisco’sargument


34

concerningtheCRD‐5500User’sManual/HPJournalcombination.‐

1226Dec.22(citingeightpagesofCisco’sPTABReply(Appx5100–

5107).Fifth,Cisco’sPTABreplydoesnotitselfevenincludetwo

separateandindependentbasesfortherejection.Rather,that

discussionsimplyusestheHPJournalasallegedlyshowing“multiple

hostsonthesametransportmedium,”butsaysnothingaboutanymap

providedbytheHPJournalsystem.See,e.g.,Cisco‐1226Reply13–20,

Appx5100–5107.Sixth,andperhapsmostcritically,Dr.Hospodor,as

discussedsupraat18–19,saidabsolutelynothingaboutHPJournal

disclosingthemappinglimitation.CiscoignoresDr.Hospodorandthe

Board’srelianceonhisdeclarationnow(e.g.,RedBr.25–26).5Inshort,

Cisco’smanufacturedmeaningforthispassagebytheBoardis

contrarytoeverypieceofsurroundingcontextualevidence.

5CiscoquicklynotesthattheBoardreliedon“Appellees’expertdeclaration”butthenhighlightspointsaboutDr.Levy,whowasAppellant’sexpert,anddoesnothighlightordiscussDr.Hospodor’sdeclaration,whichiswhattheBoardcited.RedBr.25‐26.


35

NothinginanyoftheDecisionssetsforthaseparatebasisforthe

decision,asCiscoasserts.Andnothingrelies(becausereliancewould

beimproper)ontheHPJournalforthemappinglimitations.

C. WaiverDoesNotApplytoaLesser‐IncludedPointLikeThatRaisedbyCisco

TheissuetheBoarddecidedandthisappealraisesiswhether

theCRD‐5500User’sManual/HPJournalcombinationrenderedthe

claimsobvious.RegardlessofhowoneinterpretstheBoard’sopinion,

theissueCiscoraisesonisatmostalesserincludedquestionunderthe

centralappealedissue.SeeBlueBr.18&n.10(identifyingtheBoard’s

CRD‐5500“maps”analysisasthekeyissue).ApointthatCiscoleaves

unaddressedinitsbriefingisthatwaiverappliestodistinctissues,and

nottosuchlesserincludedquestions.SeePrietov.Quarterman,456

F.3d511,517(5thCir.2006)(“[W]eviewPrieto'sinitialbriefas

sufficientlypresenting—andthuspreserving—theentireissueof

proceduraldefault,including,withoutlimitation,thelesserincluded

questionwhetheritwasimproperforthedistrictcourttoraisethe

affirmativedefenseofproceduraldefaultsuasponte.”).WhileCisco

cancertainlypressitssubstantivepointabouthowtocombinethe


36

CRD‐5500User’sManualandtheHPJournal(thoughithasnoevidence

tosupportsuchacombinationanddoesnotciteany,asdiscussed

infra),itcannottakethefurtherstepofforeclosinganyreviewofthat

decision.

D. CiscoProvidesNoOtherBasistoFindWaiver

EvenifoneacceptseveryCiscocharacterization,waivershould

notbeapplied.Waiverisanequitabledoctrineappliedonlywhenthe

equitiesdictate.SeeHarrisCorp.v.EricssonInc.,417F.3d1241,1251

(Fed.Cir.2005);cf.Wi‐LAN,Inc.v.KilpatrickTownsend&StocktonLLP,

684F.3d1364,1369(Fed.Cir.2012).Ciscohasnotmetitsburdento

showthatthisissuchacase.Forexample,thereisnodisputethat

CiscodidnotPetitionontheallegedly‐separatebasisitraisesnow,the

Boarddidnotinstituteontwobases,andCisco’sevidence(fromDr.

Hospodor)didnotaddressatallthesupposedsecondbasis.Even

Cisco’sreplydidnotapplytheHPJournaltothemappinglimitations,

andwassubmittedafterCrossroadcouldfilearesponseinanyevent.

CiscothusaskstheCourttoapplyequitytoanissueitneverraisedand

onwhichCrossroadshadnonoticeandopportunitytobeheard.


37

Moreover,theBoard’sopinionsareunclearatbest—theyinclude

noindicatorsthattheBoardwasswitchinggearstoaseparate

rejection.Theydonotcontainanydiscussionabouttheparticular

differentpartsofthetworeferencestheyarerelyingoninthe

supposeddifferentrejections.Andtheyincludenootherreferencesto

theseparaterejectionsthatCiscobuiltinitsRedbrief.Moreover,

Cisco’snewrejectionfallsbecauseithasnoevidence.Finally,Ciscoas

originatorofthe“seconddistinctrejection”theory,hadfull

opportunitytoaddressthetheoryitwasthefirsttoidentify,sothere

canbenoclaimofprejudicehere.Nofactorcounselsforawaiverhere.

CONCLUSION

Fortheforegoingreasons,Crossroadsrespectfullyrequeststhat

theBoard’srejectionsoftheclaimsbereversed.


38

Dated:October5,2016 /s/JohnA.DragsethJohnA.DragsethRobertCourtneyConradGosenFISH&RICHARDSONP.C.3200RBCPlaza,60South6thSt.Minneapolis,MN55402612‐335‐5070AttorneysforAppellantCrossroadsSystems,Inc.

CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE

TheReplyBriefforAppellantcomplieswiththetype‐volume

limitationsetforthinFRAP32(a)(7)(B).Therelevantportionsofthe

Brief,includingallfootnotes,contain6,913words,asdeterminedby

MicrosoftWord2016.

/s/JohnA.Dragseth JohnA.Dragseth


39

CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE

IherebycertifythatIelectronicallyfiledtheforegoingwiththe

ClerkoftheCourtfortheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFederal

CircuitbyusingtheappellateCM/ECFsystemonOctober5,2016.

Ifurthercertifythatallparticipantsinthecaseareregistered

CM/ECFusersandthatservicewillbeaccomplishedbytheappellate

CM/ECFsystem,inadditiontoserviceviaemailtoAppelleebyserving

theemailaddressofrecordasfollows:

[email protected]@weil.comAndrewS.EhmkeAndy.Ehmke@haynesboone.comDavidL.McCombsDavid.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.comDebraJ.McComasDebbie.McComas@haynesboone.comScottT.JarrattScott.Jarratt@[email protected]@cooley.comMatthewC.GaudetMCGaudet@[email protected]


40

[email protected]

Dated:October5,2016 /s/JohnA.Dragseth JohnA.Dragseth


Download - United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit … · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. ... SAS Inst., Inc. v

Top Related