IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 31046.8
`
`Customer No.:
`
`27683
`
`
`
`Real Parties in Interest:
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`Quantum Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`In re patent of Hoese
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041
`
`
`
`Issued: April 26, 2011
`
`
`
`Title: STORAGE ROUTER AND
`METHOD FOR PROVIDING
`VIRTUAL LOCAL STORAGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Andrew Hospodor, Ph.D.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`–1–
`
`
`
`CISCO et al. v. CROSSROADS
`CQ-1003
`Page 1 of 136
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`II. Qualifications and Professional Experience ........................................................ 6
`
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................................... 8
`
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards .................................................................................... 9
`
`V. The ’041 Patent ..................................................................................................10
`
`A. Overview ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`B. History of the ’041 Patent ........................................................................... 16
`
`VI. Claim Construction ............................................................................................16
`
`A. “native low level block protocol” ............................................................... 18
`
`B. “remote” ...................................................................................................... 21
`
`VII. Challenge #1: Claims 1-14, 16-33, 35-50, and 53 are obvious over the
`CRD-5500 Manual in view of the HP Journal ............................................23
`
`A. The CRD-5500 Manual .............................................................................. 23
`
`B. The HP Journal ........................................................................................... 30
`
`C. Reasons to Combine the CRD-5500 Manual and the HP Journal ............. 31
`
`D. Detailed Analysis ........................................................................................ 36
`
`VIII. Challenge #2: Claims 15, 34, 51, 52 are obvious over the CRD-5500
`Manual in view of the HP Journal and in further view of the ANSI
`Fibre Channel FC-PH Standard ................................................................122
`
`A. ANSI Fibre Channel FC-PH Standard ..................................................... 122
`
`B. Reasons to Combine the ANSI Fibre Channel FC-PH Standard with the
`CRD-5500 Manual and the HP Journal .................................................... 123
`
`C. Detailed Analysis ...................................................................................... 124
`
`IX. Declaration .......................................................................................................128
`
`
`
`–2–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 2 of 136
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`–3–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 I Page 3 of 136
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 3 of 136
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`I, Andrew Hospodor, Ph.D., declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Cisco Systems, Inc. and
`
`Quantum Corporation in the matter of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,934,041 (“the ’041 Patent”) to Hoese.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter. My compensation
`
`in no way depends upon the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`(1) The ’041 Patent, CQ-1001;
`
`(2) The prosecution history of the ’041 Patent, CQ-1002;
`
`(3) CMD Technology, Inc., CRD-5500 SCSI Raid Controller User's
`
`Manual, Revision 1.3, November 21, 1996 (“CRD-5500 Manual”),
`
`CQ-1004;
`
`(4) CMD Technology CRD-5500 RAID,
`
`http://web.archive.org/web/19961226091552/http://www.cmd.com/br
`
`ochure/crd5500.htm, archived December 26, 1996 by archive.org
`
`(“CRD-5500 Data Sheet”), CQ-1005;
`
`(5) Hewlett-Packard Journal, Volume 47, Number 5, October 1996 (“HP
`
`Journal”), CQ-1006;
`
`
`
`–4–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 4 of 136
`
`

`

`(6) American National Standard for Information Systems, Fibre Channel
`
`Physical and Signaling Interface (FC-PH) X3.230, Rev. 4.3, June 1,
`
`1994 (“ANSI Fibre Channel FC-PH Standard”), CQ-1007; and
`
`(7)
`
`Sun Microsystems Computer Company, SPARCstorage Array
`
`Configuration Guide, Revision A, March 1995 (“SPARCstorage
`
`Guide”), CQ-1008;
`
`(8)
`
`SPARCstorage Array – Product Brief,
`
`http://web.archive.org/web/19961220045017/http://www.sun.com/pro
`
`ducts-n-solutions/hw/peripherals/array.html, archived December 20,
`
`1996 by archive.org (“SPARCstorage Product Brief”), CQ-1009; and
`
`(9) ORDER of November 8, 2011, Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3PAR,
`
`Inc., et. al., case no. 1-10-cv-00652 (W.D. Tex. 2010), CQ-1010;
`
`4.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`(1) The documents listed above,
`
`(2) The relevant legal standards, including the standard for obviousness
`
`provided in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and
`
`(3) My knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area, as
`
`described below.
`
`
`
`–5–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 5 of 136
`
`

`

`II. Qualifications and Professional Experience
`
`5. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached as an exhibit to this
`
`declaration. Following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and
`
`professional experience:
`
`6.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Engineering
`
`from Lehigh University in 1981, a Master of Science degree in Computer Science
`
`from Santa Clara University in 1986, and a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering from
`
`Santa Clara University in 1994. My Ph.D. emphasis was in storage architecture
`
`and systems. My dissertation was entitled: “A Study of Prefetch in Caching SCSI
`
`Disk Drive Buffers.”
`
`7.
`
`I have been part of the data storage industry for over 25 years and
`
`involved in firmware engineering for disk drive and tape drive controllers,
`
`including implementation of command processing, error correction, and buffer
`
`management. I have also focused on simulation and implementation of disk and
`
`tape drives at Quantum. I have been involved in the architecting of network storage
`
`devices that included disk drives, tape drives, network switches, routers and
`
`software. I have also been involved in the simulation and implementation of disk
`
`interfaces, including ATA, SCSI, and Fibre Channel.
`
`
`
`–6–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 6 of 136
`
`

`

`8.
`
`I have taught graduate and undergraduate courses at Santa Clara
`
`University. After receiving my Master’s degree in 1986, I joined the Institute for
`
`Information Storage Technology as an Adjunct Lecturer, then later as a Research
`
`Fellow. I have taught courses in Computer Architecture, Storage Architecture,
`
`Hard Disk and Floppy Disk Controller Design, and Grid Computing. I am
`
`currently the Executive Director of the Storage Systems Research Center at
`
`University of California, Santa Cruz. Here, I oversee the research of faculty,
`
`graduate students, post-doctoral scholars and continue to work with industrial
`
`sponsors in the data storage industry as well as the National Science Foundation.
`
`9.
`
`I am a named inventor on twelve U.S. patents related to data storage
`
`that have been cited as prior art in 183 other patents. I have authored numerous
`
`publications in reference journals, industry periodicals, and am often cited by my
`
`peers in textbooks and journal publications. I have presented to the American
`
`National Standards Institute (ANSI) committee on the Small Computer Systems
`
`Interface (SCSI), the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the SCSI
`
`Forum, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Systems Design
`
`and Network Conference, and many other storage related conferences
`
`10.
`
`In summary, I have a deep familiarity with data storage devices,
`
`systems, interfaces, networks, and architectures, and had first-hand experience with
`
`these technologies at the relevant time of the ’041 Patent invention and before.
`
`
`
`–7–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 7 of 136
`
`

`

`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`11.
`
`I am familiar with the knowledge and capabilities possessed by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the data storage field in 1997, the year in which the parent patent
`
`application of the ’041 was filed. Specifically, my extensive experience (i) in the
`
`industry and (ii) with engineers practicing in the industry allowed me to become
`
`personally familiar with the level of skill of individuals and the general state of the
`
`art. Additionally, I personally possessed the knowledge and capabilities of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the data storage field at the relevant time.
`
`12.
`
`In my opinion, the level of ordinary skill in the art needed to have the
`
`capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to
`
`the ’041 Patent is (i) a Master of Science (M.S.) degree in Computer Science or
`
`Computer Engineering or a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree in Computer
`
`Engineering or equivalent training, and (ii) at least five years of direct experience
`
`in developing data storage technologies. Relevant industry experience would
`
`include experience with network-based data storage, including block-level storage
`
`protocols, logical addressing, storage virtualization, and access controls. Such
`
`skills and experience would have been necessary in order to appreciate what was
`
`obvious and/or anticipated in the industry and what a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have thought at the time. Unless otherwise stated, my testimony
`
`below refers to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the data storage field in
`
`
`
`–8–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 8 of 136
`
`

`

`1997.
`
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards
`
`13.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`claims 1-53 of the ’041 Patent are anticipated or would have been obvious to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in light
`
`of the prior art. It is my understanding that, to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102, a reference must teach every element of the claim. Further, it is my
`
`understanding that a claimed invention is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
`
`differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. I also
`
`understand that the obviousness analysis takes into account factual inquiries
`
`including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`and the differences between the prior art and the claimed subject matter.
`
`14.
`
`It is my understanding, based on my review of KSR, that the Supreme
`
`Court has recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a
`
`reference to show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales
`
`include the following: combining prior art elements according to known methods
`
`to yield predictable results; simple substitution of one known element for another
`
`
`
`–9–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 9 of 136
`
`

`

`to obtain predictable results; use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in
`
`the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`V. The ’041 Patent
`
`A. Overview
`
`15. The ’041 Patent generally relates to network-based storage and
`
`describes a “storage router” that routes storage requests between workstations and
`
`storage devices. (CQ-1001, Abstract). The ’041 Patent has three independent
`
`claims (claims 1, 20, and 37) and a total of 53 claims. Claim 1 provides a basic
`
`overview of the teachings of the ’041 Patent:
`
`1. A storage router for providing virtual local storage on
`
`remote storage devices, comprising:
`
`a first controller operable to interface with a first transport
`
`medium, wherein the first medium is a serial transport media; and
`
`a processing device coupled to the first controller, wherein the
`
`
`
`–10–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 10 of 136
`
`

`

`processing device is configured to:
`
`maintain a map to allocate storage space on the remote
`
`storage devices to devices connected to the first transport
`
`medium by associating representations of the devices connected
`
`to the first transport medium with representations of storage
`
`space on
`
`the
`
`remote
`
`storage devices, wherein each
`
`representation of a device connected to the first transport
`
`medium is associated with one or more representations of
`
`storage space on the remote storage devices;
`
`control access from the devices connected to the first
`
`transport medium to the storage space on the remote storage
`
`devices in accordance with the map; and
`
`allow access from devices connected to the first transport
`
`medium to the remote storage devices using native low level
`
`block protocol.
`
`16. As noted by the background section of the ’041 specification, various
`
`types of communication links supporting different communication distances were
`
`known in the art at the time of the ’041 invention. For example, the ’041
`
`specification notes that communication links based on the Small Computer System
`
`Interface (SCSI) standard provide for “relatively short distances” between devices
`
`(e.g., less than 25 meters) while communication links based the Fibre Channel
`
`standard provide for “large distances” between devices (e.g., more than 10
`
`kilometers). (CQ-1001, 1:51-64). According to the specification, the storage router
`
`
`
`–11–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 11 of 136
`
`

`

`of the ’041 Patent utilizes the large distances provided for by Fibre Channel to
`
`provide workstations with access to “significantly remote” storage devices. (CQ-
`
`1001, 2:55-61).
`
`17. Figure 3 of the ’041 Patent, annotated below, illustrates the
`
`architecture of the storage network in which the storage router operates.
`
`Specifically, in Fig. 3, workstations on the Fibre Channel serial communication
`
`link (i.e., transport medium) are connected to one side of the storage router (the
`
`“host side”) while storage devices on the SCSI parallel communication bus are
`
`connected to the other side of the storage router (the “disk side”). (CQ-1001, 4:27-
`
`34). The ’041 specification describes the storage router as “a bridge device that
`
`connects a Fiber Channel link directly to a SCSI bus.” (CQ-1001, 5:59-61). The
`
`storage router enables the exchange of SCSI commands and data between the
`
`workstations and the storage devices. (CQ-1001, 5:59-63). According to the
`
`specification, a “SCSI command” is one example of a native low level block
`
`protocol command. (CQ-1001, 5:59-63). Additionally, the specification states that
`
`Fibre Channel-based workstations on one side of the storage router may
`
`communicate with SCSI-based storage devices on the other side of the storage
`
`router by encapsulating SCSI commands into Fibre Channel Protocol (FCP)
`
`requests. (CQ-1001, 6:56-67). I note that encapsulating low level commands such
`
`as SCSI commands inside of a Fibre Channel request was a feature of the Fibre
`
`
`
`–12–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 12 of 136
`
`

`

`Channel standard, and was thus well known in the art at the time of the ’041
`
`invention. (CQ-1006, pp. 94-95).
`
`Workstations
`
`
`Storage Router
`
`
`SCSI Bus
`
`
`Fibre Channel link
`
`
`CQ-1001, Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`Storage devices
`
`
`
`
`18.
`
`In addition to the mode of operation shown in association with Fig. 3,
`
`specification also notes that the “storage router has various modes of operation.”
`
`(CQ-1001, 6:43). For example, the storage router may route data between (i) a
`
`Fibre Channel host and a SCSI storage device, (ii) a SCSI host and a Fibre Channel
`
`storage device, (iii) a SCSI host and SCSI storage device, and (iv) a Fibre Channel
`
`host and a Fibre Channel storage device. (CQ-1001, 6:43-46). With regard to the
`
`Fibre Channel-to-Fibre Channel mode of operation, the specification states that the
`
`
`
`–13–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 13 of 136
`
`

`

`storage router may “act as a bridge between two FC loops.” (CQ-1001, 6:54-55).
`
`19. The specification further states that the storage router uses “mapping
`
`tables” to allocate subsets of storage space (i.e., partitions) on the storage devices
`
`to particular workstations. (CQ-1001, 4:41-44). For example, with reference to
`
`Fig. 3, “[s]torage device 62 can be configured to provide partitioned subsets 66, 68,
`
`70 and 72, where each partition is allocated to one of the workstations 58
`
`(workstations A, B, C and D).” (CQ-1001, 4:47-50). Further, the ’041
`
`specification states that the storage router provides “virtual local storage” such that
`
`a partition mapped to a workstations 58 is “considered by the workstation 58 to be
`
`its local storage”—i.e., the mapped partition “has the appearance and
`
`characteristics of local storage.” (CQ-1001, 4:35-41, 4:4-14). As discussed below
`
`in more detail, it was well known in the art at the time of the ’041 invention to map
`
`workstations on one side of a storage router to partitions on the other side of the
`
`storage router, and to make the partitions appear local. (CQ-1004, p. 1-2, 4-5).
`
`20. According to the ’041 specification, the storage router uses the
`
`mapping functionality to facilitate both routing and access control. (CQ-1001,
`
`5:52-54). With respect to routing, the specification states that the map between the
`
`initiators and the specific subsets of storage allows the storage router to determine
`
`“what partition is being addressed by a particular request,” thus enabling it to
`
`“distribute[] requests and data” to storage devices. (CQ-1001, 9:21-24, 4:16-20).
`
`
`
`–14–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 14 of 136
`
`

`

`With respect to access control, the specification states that the storage router
`
`prevents a workstation from accessing a subset of storage not allocated to that
`
`workstation in the map. (CQ-1001, 9:15-27). For example, in Fig. 3, “subsets 66,
`
`68, 70 and 72 can only be accessed by the associated workstation 58.” (CQ-1001,
`
`4:50-51). I have annotated Fig. 3 below to illustrate the general flow of I/O
`
`commands in the storage network of the ’041 Patent. As discussed below in more
`
`detail, the concept of using a map to facilitate routing to and access control of
`
`storage devices was well known in the art at the time of the ’041 invention. (CQ-
`
`1004, p. 1-2, 4-5).
`
`(i) workstation B sends a SCSI I/O
`command to its “virtual local storage”
`
`
`(ii) storage router uses map to
`determine which partition is
`allocated to workstation B
`
`
`(iii) partition mapped to
`workstation B receives
`SCSI I/O command
`
`CQ-1001, Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`
`
`–15–
`
`
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 15 of 136
`
`

`

`21. Because routing SCSI commands over Fibre Channel, mapping
`
`workstations to storage partitions, and using such a mapping for routing and access
`
`control were all well known in the art at the time of the ’041 invention, it is my
`
`opinion that the storage network described by the ’041 Patent is simply a collection
`
`of components that were well known in the art at the time of the ’041 invention.
`
`And, as shown below, these well-known components are arranged in a manner that
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`B. History of the ’041 Patent
`
`22. The ’041 Patent issued on April 26, 2011, from U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 12/690,592 (“the ’592 application”) filed on January 20, 2010, by
`
`Geoffrey B. Hoese and Jeffry T. Russell. The ’041 Patent claims priority back to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,941,972 (“the ’972 Patent”), filed on December 31, 1997, via a
`
`long string of intervening continuation applications.
`
`23. Based on my review of the prosecution history of the ’592 application,
`
`it appears the Patent Office did not substantively consider the CRD-5500 Manual,
`
`the HP Journal, or the ANSI Fibre Channel FC-PH Standard in view of the claims
`
`of the ’041 Patent. (See CQ-1002).
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`
`24.
`
`
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’041
`
`–16–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 16 of 136
`
`

`

`Patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`for the purposes of this inter partes review the claims are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. It is my further understanding
`
`that claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, unless the inventor has set forth a
`
`special meaning for a term. As such, any claim term not construed below should be
`
`given its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`25.
`
`In order to construe the following claim terms, I have reviewed the
`
`entirety of the ’041 Patent, as well as its prosecution history. I have also reviewed
`
`the constructions given to the claim terms in previous litigations involving patents
`
`related to the ’041 Patent. In particular, I reviewed the claim construction order
`
`from the Crossroads v. 3Par district court case1, that construed claim terms recited
`
`in U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035. I note that the ’035 Patent is a family member of the
`
`’041 Patent and recites similar claim language. It is my understanding that the
`
`constructions given to the claim terms for the purposes of this inter partes review
`
`may be broader than or equal in scope to the constructions given by the District
`
`Court. In any case, I believe the following constructions are consistent with the
`
`
`1 Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3PAR, Inc., et. al., case no. 1-10-cv-00652 (W.D.
`
`Tex. 2010).
`
`
`
`–17–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 17 of 136
`
`

`

`District Court’s constructions.
`
`26. The following table summarizes my claim constructions. My analysis
`
`of each claim term follows.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“native low level block protocol” A protocol in which storage space is accessed
`at the block level, such as the SCSI protocol
`
`“remote”
`
`Indirectly connected through a storage router
`to enable connections to storage devices at a
`distance greater than allowed by a
`conventional parallel network interconnect
`
`A.
`
` “native low level block protocol”
`
`27. The claim term “native low level block protocol” is found in claims 1,
`
`6, 20, 25, 37, and 42.
`
`28.
`
`I note that in the 3Par case, the District Court construed “native low
`
`level block protocol” to mean “a set of rules or standards that enable computers to
`
`exchange information and do not involve the overhead of high level protocols and
`
`file systems typically required by network servers.” (CQ-1010, p. 13).
`
`29. Based on my review of the ’041 Patent, it appears that the
`
`specification does not provide an explicit definition for “native low level block
`
`protocol.” I note, however, that the ’041 specification discloses—with reference to
`
`Fig. 1—that:
`
`In network 10, each workstation 12 has access to its local storage
`
`
`
`–18–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 18 of 136
`
`

`

`device as well as network access to data on storage devices 20. The
`
`access to a local storage device is typically through native low
`
`level, block protocols. On the other hand, access by a workstation
`
`12 to storage devices 20 requires the participation of network server
`
`14 which implements a file system and transfers data to
`
`workstations 12 only through high level file system protocols. Only
`
`network server 14 communicates with storage devices 20 via native
`
`low level, block protocols. (CQ-1001, 3:43-52, emphasis added).
`
`Similarly, with reference to Fig. 3, the specification states that:
`
`Storage device 62 can be configured to provide partitioned subsets
`
`66, 68, 70 and 72, where each partition is allocated to one of the
`
`workstations 58 (workstations A, B, C and D). These subsets 66,
`
`68, 70 and 72 can only be accessed by the associated workstation
`
`58 and appear to the associated workstation 58 as local storage
`
`accessed using native low level, block protocols. (CQ-1001, 4:47-
`
`53, emphasis added).
`
`This
`
`is accomplished without
`
`limiting
`
`the performance of
`
`workstations 58 because storage access involves native low level,
`
`block protocols and does not involve the overhead of high level
`
`protocols and file systems required by network servers. (CQ-1001,
`
`5:29-33, emphasis added).
`
`Further, the specification states that:
`
`The storage router of the present invention is a bridge device that
`
`connects a Fiber Channel link directly to a SCSI bus and enables
`
`the exchange of SCSI command set
`
`information between
`
`
`
`–19–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 19 of 136
`
`

`

`application clients on SCSI bus devices and the Fiber Channel
`
`links. (CQ-1001, 5:59-63, emphasis added).
`
`The FC Initiator to SCSI Target mode provides for the basic
`
`configuration of a server using Fiber Channel to communicate with
`
`SCSI targets. This mode requires that a host system have an FC
`
`attached device and associated device drivers and software to
`
`generate SCSI-3 FCP requests. This system acts as an initiator
`
`using the storage router to communicate with SCSI target devices.
`
`The SCSI devices supported can include SCSI-2 compliant direct or
`
`sequential access (disk or tape) devices. The storage router serves
`
`to translate command and status information and transfer data
`
`between SCSI-3 FCP and SCSI-2, allowing the use of standard
`
`SCSI-2 devices in a Fibre Channel environment. (CQ-1001, 6:56-
`
`67, emphasis added).
`
`30. Based on the above, it appears that in the context of the ’041 Patent
`
`native low level block protocols are storage protocols that access storage space on
`
`storage devices at the block level. The specification contrasts these low level
`
`storage protocols with “high level file system protocols” that address storage space
`
`at the file level. (CQ-1001, 3:43-52). Further, according to the specification, a
`
`“SCSI command” is one example of a native low level block protocol command.
`
`(CQ-1001, 5:59-63). Additionally, the specification describes a scenario in which
`
`Fibre Channel initiators may communicate with SCSI storage devices by
`
`encapsulating low level SCSI commands into Fibre Channel Protocol (FCP)
`
`
`
`–20–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 20 of 136
`
`

`

`requests. (CQ-1001, 6:56-67).
`
`31.
`
`It is therefore my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand the broadest reasonable interpretation of “native low level block
`
`protocol” in view of the specification to include at least: “a protocol in which
`
`storage space is accessed at the block level, such as the SCSI protocol.”
`
`B.
`
`“remote”
`
`32. The claim term “remote” is found in claims 1-4, 7, 12, 13, 19-23, 26,
`
`31, 32, 37-40, 43, 48, 49, and 53.
`
`33.
`
`I note that in the 3Par case, the District Court construed “remote” to
`
`mean “indirectly connected through at least one serial network transport medium.”
`
`(CQ-1010, p. 12).
`
`34. Based on my review of the ’041 Patent, it appears that the
`
`specification does not provide an explicit definition for “remote.” I note, however,
`
`that the ’041 specification discloses that:
`
`Typical storage transport mediums provide for a relatively small
`
`number of devices to be attached over relatively short distances.
`
`One such transport medium is a Small Computer System Interface
`
`(SCSI) protocol, the structure and operation of which is generally
`
`well known as is described, for example, in the SCSI-1, SCSI-2 and
`
`SCSI-3 specifications. High speed serial interconnects provide
`
`
`
`–21–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 21 of 136
`
`

`

`enhanced capability to attach a large number of high speed devices
`
`to a common storage transport medium over large distances. (CQ-
`
`1001, 1:51-59).
`
`A technical advantage of the present invention is the ability to
`
`centralize local storage for networked workstations without any
`
`cost of speed or overhead. Each workstation access its virtual local
`
`storage as if it work [sic] locally connected. Further, the centralized
`
`storage devices can be located in a significantly remote position
`
`even in excess of ten kilometers as defined by Fibre Channel
`
`standards. (CQ-1001, 2:55-61).
`
`With reference to Fig. 3, the specification states that:
`
`Storage router 56 provides centralized control of what each
`
`workstation 58 sees as its local drive, as well as what data it sees as
`
`global data accessible by other workstations 58. Consequently, the
`
`storage space considered by the workstation 58 to be its local
`
`storage is actually a partition (i.e., logical storage definition) of a
`
`physically remote storage device 60, 62 or 64 connected through
`
`storage router 56. (CQ-1001, 5:8-14, emphasis added).
`
`35.
`
`I note that, when describing the storage network shown in Fig. 3, the
`
`specification states that storage devices on the SCSI bus connected to one side of
`
`the storage router are “physically remote” from workstations on the Fibre Channel
`
`transport medium connected to the other side of the storage router. (CQ-1001, 5:8-
`
`14). Further, the specification states that SCSI provides for “relatively short
`
`distances” between devices (e.g., less than 25 meters) while Fibre Channel
`
`
`
`–22–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 22 of 136
`
`

`

`provides for “large distances” between devices (e.g., more than 10 kilometers).
`
`(CQ-1001, 1:51-64). One of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification at the
`
`time of the ’041 Patent invention would understand that the SCSI-1, SCSI-2, and
`
`SCSI-3 transport media referred to therein are conventional parallel network
`
`interconnects, and that the Fibre Channel transport medium referred to is a serial
`
`network interconnect.
`
`36.
`
`It is therefore my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand the broadest reasonable interpretation of “remote” in view of the
`
`specification to include at least: “indirectly connected through a storage router to
`
`enable connections to storage devices at a distance greater than allowed by a
`
`conventional parallel network interconnect.”
`
`VII. Challenge #1: Claims 1-14, 16-33, 35-50, and 53 are obvious over the
`
`CRD-5500 Manual in view of the HP Journal
`
`37.
`
`It is my opinion that the CRD-5500 Manual in view of the HP Journal
`
`renders obvious each and every element of at least claims 1-14, 16-33, 35-50, and
`
`53 of the ’041 Patent.
`
`A. The CRD-5500 Manual
`
`38. The CRD-5500 Manual describes the features and operation of the
`
`CRD-5500 SCSI Raid Controller (“CRD-5500 RAID controller”). In general, the
`
`
`
`–23–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 23 of 136
`
`

`

`CRD-5500 RAID controller routes commands and data between hosts (i.e.,
`
`initiators) and storage devices (i.e., targets) coupled to the controller. (CQ-1004,
`
`pp. 1-1, 1-4). Figure 1-2 in the CRD-5500 Manual, annotated below, illustrates the
`
`architecture of the storage network in which the CRD-5500 RAID controller
`
`operates. Specifically, in Figure 1-2, hosts attached to SCSI buses (i.e., transport
`
`media) are connected to one side of the CRD-5500 RAID controller and storage
`
`devices attached to SCSI buses are connected to the other side of the CRD-5500
`
`RAID controller. (CQ-1004, p. 2-4). The CRD-5500 RAID controller enables the
`
`exchange of SCSI commands and data between the hosts and the storage devices.
`
`(CQ-1004, pp. 1-1, 1-4, 2-1, 2-4). To improve performance, the CRD-5500 RAID
`
`controller includes an onboard cache (also commonly known as a buffer) with
`
`“512 megabytes of memory in the form of standard 72-pin, 60-nanosecond
`
`SIMMs” that temporarily buffers data flowing between the hosts and the storage
`
`devices. (CQ-1004, p. 1-4.)
`
`
`
`–24–
`
`
`
`CQ-1003 / Page 24 of 136
`
`

`

`Hosts
`
`
`CRD-5500 RAID
`Controller
`
`Host SCSI Buses
`
`
`Storage Device
` SCSI Buses
`
`
`Storage devices
`
`
`CQ-1004, Figure 1-2 (annotated)
`
`
`
`39. The CRD-5500 RAID controller includes a Monitor Utility in its
`
`firmware that gives a user “complete control over the configuration and operation
`
`of the controller.” (CQ-1004, p. 4-1). The Monitor Utility