IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 31046.6
`Customer No.:
`27683
`
`Real Parties in Interest:
`Cisco Systems, Inc.
`Quantum Corporation
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`In re patent of Hoese
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035
`
`Issued: July 23, 2002
`
`Title: STORAGE ROUTER AND
`METHOD FOR PROVIDING
`VIRTUAL LOCAL STORAGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Andrew Hospodor, Ph.D.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`–1–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 1
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3 
`I. 
`II.  Qualifications and Professional Experience ........................................................ 4 
`III.  Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................................... 6 
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards .................................................................................... 7 
`V.  The ’035 Patent .................................................................................................... 9 
`A.  Overview ....................................................................................................... 9 
`B.  History of the ’035 Patent ........................................................................... 14 
`VI. Claim Construction ............................................................................................ 16 
`A.  “to map between devices connected to the first transport medium and
`the storage devices” .................................................................................... 18 
`B.  “native low level block protocol” ............................................................... 21 
`C.  “remote” ...................................................................................................... 24 
`VII.  Challenge #1: Claims 1-5 and 7-14 are obvious over the CRD-5500
`Manual in view of the HP Journal .............................................................. 26 
`A.  The CRD-5500 Manual .............................................................................. 26 
`B.  The HP Journal ........................................................................................... 33 
`C.  Reasons to Combine the CRD-5500 Manual and the HP Journal.............. 34 
`D.  Detailed Analysis ........................................................................................ 38 
`VIII.  Challenge #2: Claim 6 is obvious over the CRD-5500 Manual in view
`of the HP Journal and in further view of the QLogic Data Sheet .............116 
`A.  The QLogic Data Sheet ............................................................................ 117 
`B.  Reasons to Combine the QLogic Data Sheet with the CRD-5500
`Manual and the HP Journal ...................................................................... 118 
`C.  Detailed Analysis ...................................................................................... 118 
`IX. Declaration .......................................................................................................124 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`–2–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 2
`
`

`
`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
`
`6,425,035 (“the ’035 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 ’035 Patent, CQ-1001;
`
`(2) The prosecution history of the ’035 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;
`
`
`
`–3–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 3
`
`

`
`(6) QLogic Corporation, FAS216/216U/236/236U Fast Architecture SCSI
`
`Processor Data Sheet (Oct. 4, 1996) (“QLogic Data Sheet”), CQ-
`
`1007; and
`
`(7) Business Wire, QLogic expands its high performance fast architecture
`
`SCSI family with Ultra SCSI solutions; drop-in Ultra SCSI upgrades
`
`to tape drives, printers, RAID controllers and scanners, August 6,
`
`1996, CQ-1008;
`
`(8) ORDER of November 8, 2011, Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3PAR,
`
`Inc., et. al., case no. 1-10-cv-00652 (W.D. Tex. 2010), CQ-1009;
`
`(9) The prosecution history of Reexamination No. 90/007,125 of the ’035
`
`Patent, 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.
`
`II. Qualifications and Professional Experience
`
`
`
`–4–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 4
`
`

`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`–5–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 5
`
`

`
`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 ’035 Patent invention and before.
`
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`
`
`–6–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 6
`
`

`
`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 ’035 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 ’035 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 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 1997
`
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards
`
`
`
`–7–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 7
`
`

`
`13.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`claims 1-14 of the ’035 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
`
`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;
`
`
`
`–8–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 8
`
`

`
`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 ’035 Patent
`
`A. Overview
`
`15. The ’035 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 ’035 Patent has three independent
`
`claims (claims 1, 7, and 11) and a total of 14 claims. Claim 1 provides a basic
`
`overview of the teachings of the ’035 Patent:
`
`1. A storage router for providing virtual local storage on
`remote storage devices to devices, comprising:
`
`a buffer providing memory work space for the storage router;
`
`a first controller operable to connect to and interface with a first
`transport medium;
`
`a second controller operable to connect to and interface with a
`second transport medium; and
`
`a supervisor unit coupled to the first controller, the second
`controller and the buffer, the supervisor unit operable to map between
`
`
`
`–9–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 9
`
`

`
`devices connected to the first transport medium and the storage
`devices, to implement access controls for storage space on the storage
`devices and to process data in the buffer to interface between the first
`controller and the second controller to allow access from devices
`connected to the first transport medium to the storage devices using
`native low level, block protocols.
`
`16. As noted by the background section of the ’035 specification, various
`
`types of communication links supporting different communication distances were
`
`known in the art at the time of the ’035 invention. For example, the ’035
`
`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, 1:23-31). According to the specification, the storage router
`
`of the ’035 Patent utilizes the large distances provided for by Fibre Channel to
`
`provide workstations with access to “significantly remote” storage devices. (CQ-
`
`1001, 5:27-33).
`
`17. Figure 3 of the ’035 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 and
`
`
`
`–10–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 10
`
`

`
`storage devices on the SCSI parallel communication bus are connected to the other
`
`side of the storage router. (CQ-1001, 3:67-4:6). The specification describes the
`
`storage router as “a bridge device that connects a Fiber Channel link directly to a
`
`SCSI bus.” (CQ-1001, 5:34-36). The storage router enables the exchange of SCSI
`
`commands and data between the workstations and the storage devices. (CQ-1001,
`
`5:34-38). According to the specification, a “SCSI command” is one example of a
`
`native low level block protocol command. (CQ-1001, 5:34-38). 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, 6:32-44). I note that encapsulating low level
`
`commands such as SCSI commands inside of a Fibre Channel request was a
`
`feature of the Fibre Channel standard, and was thus well known in the art at the
`
`time of the ’035 invention. (CQ-1006, pp. 94-95).
`
`
`
`–11–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 11
`
`

`
`Workstations
`
`Storage Router
`
`SCSI Bus
`
`Fibre Channel link
`
`Storage devices
`
`CQ-1001, Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`
`
`18. 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, 4:13-25). 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, 4:19-22). Further, the ’035
`
`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
`
`
`
`–12–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 12
`
`

`
`characteristics of local storage.” (CQ-1001, 4:7-13, 4:44-54). As discussed below
`
`in more detail, it was well known in the art at the time of the ’035 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).
`
`19. According to the ’035 specification, the storage router uses the
`
`mapping functionality to facilitate both routing and access control. (CQ-1001,
`
`5:25-27). 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, 8:67-9:3, 3:56-58).
`
`With respect to access control, the specification states that the storage router
`
`prevents a workstation from accessing a subset of storage not allocated to it in the
`
`map. (CQ-1001, 8:61-9:6). For example, in Fig. 3, “subsets 66, 68, 70 and 72 can
`
`only be accessed by the associated workstation 58.” (CQ-1001, 4:22-24). I have
`
`annotated Fig. 3 below to illustrate the general flow of I/O commands in the
`
`storage network of the ’035 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 ’035 invention. (CQ-1004, p. 1-2, 4-5).
`
`
`
`–13–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 13
`
`

`
`(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
`
`CQ-1001, Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`(iii) partition mapped to
`workstation B receives
`SCSI I/O command
`
`
`
`20. 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 ’035 invention, it is my
`
`opinion that the storage network described by the ’035 Patent is simply a collection
`
`of components that were well known in the art at the ’035 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 ’035 Patent
`
`
`
`–14–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 14
`
`

`
`21. The ’035 Patent issued on July 23, 2002, from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 09/965,335 (“the ’335 application”) filed on September 27, 2001, by Geoffrey
`
`B. Hoese and Jeffry T. Russell. The ’035 Patent is purportedly a continuation of
`
`U.S. Patent No. No. 5.941,972 (“the ’972 Patent”) filed on December 31, 1997.
`
`22. During the prosecution of the ’335 application, the Patent Owner,
`
`upon the request of the Examiner, filed a Terminal Disclaimer disclaiming any
`
`patent term extending beyond the life of the parent ’972 Patent. (CQ-1002, pp. 59-
`
`62). The Examiner then issued a Notice of Allowance without ever substantively
`
`rejecting the claims. (CQ-1002, 63-65).
`
`23. After the ’035 Patent issued, two Ex Parte Reexamination requests
`
`were filed against the ’035 patent. The Patent Office ordered both reexaminations
`
`(control nos. 90/007,125 and 90/007,317) and then combined them into one
`
`proceeding. In the request for the 90/007,125 reexamination, the requester
`
`included a detailed analysis of how the MaxStrat GEN5 RAID controller
`
`anticipated the claims of the ’035 Patent. (CQ-1010, pp. 314-320). The requester
`
`additionally cited to the CRD-5500 SCSI RAID Controller and numerous other
`
`similar systems for support that “there were other RAID controllers that performed
`
`access control [and] were commercially available at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the ’035 Patent.” (CQ-1010, p. 320). I note, however, that the request
`
`pointed to only two paragraphs in the CRD-5500 Manual and did not provide a
`
`
`
`–15–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 15
`
`

`
`detailed limitation-by-limitation analysis of how the features of the CRD-5500
`
`RAID controller met the claims of the ’035 Patent. (CQ-1010, p. 321). In the
`
`order granting the 90/007,125 reexamination, the Patent Office stated the MaxStrat
`
`GEN 5 manuals raised a substantial new question of patentability, but refused to
`
`substantively consider the “other art cited in the request for re-examination,”
`
`because the Requestor “set forth a voluminous citation of prior art, with an
`
`inordinately large number of possible combinations of cited art, placing the burden
`
`on ‘explanation’ on the examiner.” (CQ-1010, pp. 288-292). In the Office Actions
`
`that followed, the Patent Office similarly did not cite to or address the relevance of
`
`the CRD-5500 Manual. (CQ-1010, pp. 247-258; 147-161).
`
`24. Based on the above, it appears that during the course of the
`
`90/007,125 reexamination the Patent Office never substantively considered the
`
`relevance of the CRD-5500 Manual to the claims of the ’035 Patent. In any case,
`
`the challenges to the ’035 Patent presented in my declaration based on the
`
`combined teachings of the CRD-5500 Manual and the HP Journal were never
`
`considered by the Patent Office during the original prosecution or during the
`
`reexaminations of the ’035 Patent.
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`
`25.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’035
`
`
`
`–16–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 16
`
`

`
`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.
`
`26.
`
`In order to construe the following claim terms, I have reviewed the
`
`entirety of the ’035 Patent, as well as its prosecution history. I have also reviewed
`
`the constructions given to the claim terms in previous litigations involving the ’035
`
`patent. In particular, I reviewed the claim construction order from the Crossroads
`
`v. 3Par district court case1. 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, the
`
`below constructions are consistent with the District Court’s constructions.
`
`27. The following table summarizes my claim constructions. My analysis
`
`of each claim term follows.
`
`
`1 Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3PAR, Inc., et. al., case no. 1-10-cv-00652 (W.D.
`
`Tex. 2010).
`
`
`
`–17–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 17
`
`

`
`Claim Construction
`Claim Term
`To allocate storage on the storage devices to
`“to map between devices
`devices on the first transport medium to
`connected to the first transport
`facilitate routing and access controls
`medium and the storage devices”
`“native low level block protocol” A protocol in which storage space is accessed
`at the block level, such as the SCSI protocol
`Indirectly connected through a storage router
`to enable connections to storage devices at a
`distance greater than allowed by a
`conventional parallel network interconnect
`
`“remote”
`
`A.
`“to map between devices connected to the first transport medium and
`the storage devices”
`
`28. The above claim term is found in claim 1. Claim 7 similarly recites
`
`“to map between the workstations and the storage devices” and claim 11 similarly
`
`recites “mapping between devices connected to the first transport medium and the
`
`storage devices.”
`
`29.
`
`I note that in the 3Par case, the District Court construed “map /
`
`mapping” to mean “to create a path from a device on one side of the storage router
`
`to a device on the other side of the router. A ‘map’ contains a representation of
`
`devices on each side of the storage router, so that when a device on one side of the
`
`storage router wants to communicate with a device on the other side of the storage
`
`router, the storage router can connect the devices.” (CQ-1009, p. 12).
`
`30. Based on my review of the ’035 Patent, it appears that the
`
`
`
`–18–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 18
`
`

`
`specification does not provide an explicit definition for any of the above related
`
`claim terms. I note, however, that the ’035 specification discloses—with reference
`
`to Fig. 3—that:
`
`Storage router 56 allows the configuration and modification of the
`storage allocated to each attached workstation 58 through the use of
`mapping tables or other mapping techniques. . . . 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, 4:13-25, emphasis added).
`
`Further, the specification states that:
`
`In addition to addressing, according to the present invention, the
`storage router provides configuration and access controls that cause
`certain requests from FC Initiators to be directed to assigned virtual
`local storage partitioned on SCSI storage devices. For example, the
`same request for LUN 0 (local storage) by two different FC
`Initiators can be directed to two separate subsets of storage. The
`storage router can use tables to map, for each initiator, what storage
`access is available and what partition is being addressed by a
`particular request. In this manner, the storage space provided by
`SCSI storage devices can be allocated to FC initiators to provide
`virtual local storage as well as to create any other desired
`configuration for secured access. (CQ-1001, 8:61-9:6, emphasis
`
`
`
`–19–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 19
`
`

`
`added).
`
`Additionally, dependent claim 2 recites:
`
`The storage router of claim 1, wherein the supervisor unit maintains
`an allocation of subsets of storage space to associated devices
`connected to the first transport medium, wherein each subset is only
`accessible by the associated device connected to the first transport
`medium. (CQ-1001, 9:32-36).
`
`31. Based on the above, it appears that in the context of the ’035 patent
`
`mapping generally refers to the allocation of partitioned storage space to initiator
`
`devices. This allocation forms a map between the initiators and the specific
`
`subsets of storage that the storage router uses to “distribute[] requests and data” to
`
`storage devices. (CQ-1001, 3:56-58). It further appears that this mapping prevents
`
`an initiator from accessing a subset of storage not allocated to it—i.e. subsets of
`
`storage “can only be accessed by the associated workstation.” (CQ-1001, 4:22-23).
`
`At least in one instance, the storage router stores the allocations of subsets of
`
`storage to initiators in one or more “mapping tables.” Further, dependent claim 2
`
`appears to clarify the mapping language recited in independent claim 1.
`
`32.
`
`It is therefore my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand the broadest reasonable interpretation of “to map between
`
`devices connected to the first transport medium and the storage devices,” “to map
`
`between the workstations and the storage devices,” and “mapping between devices
`
`
`
`–20–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 20
`
`

`
`connected to the first transport medium and the storage devices” in view of the
`
`specification to include at least: “to allocate storage on the storage devices to
`
`devices on the first transport medium to facilitate routing and access controls.”
`
`B.
`
`“native low level block protocol”
`
`33. The claim term “native low level block protocol” is found in claims 1,
`
`7, and 11.
`
`34.
`
`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-1009, p. 13).
`
`35. Based on my review of the ’035 Patent, it appears that the
`
`specification does not provide an explicit definition for “native low level block
`
`protocol.” I note, however, that the ’035 specification discloses—with reference to
`
`Fig. 1—that:
`
`In network 10, each workstation 12 has access to its local storage
`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
`
`
`
`–21–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 21
`
`

`
`network server 14 communicates with storage devices 20 via native
`low level, block protocols. (CQ-1001, 3:14-22, 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, 4:19-
`25, emphasis added).
`
`the performance of
`limiting
`is accomplished without
`This
`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,
`5:1-5, 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
`application clients on SCSI bus devices and the Fiber Channel
`links. (CQ-1001, 5:34-38, 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
`
`
`
`–22–
`
`
`
`Oracle/Dot Hill Ex. 1003, pg. 22
`
`

`
`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, 6:32-
`44, emphasis added).
`
`36. Based on the above, it appears that in the context of the ’035 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, 3:14-22). Further, according to the specification, a
`
`“SCSI command” is one example of a native low level block protocol command.
`
`(CQ-1001, 5:34-38). 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)
`
`requests. (CQ-1001, 6:32-44).
`
`37.
`
`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
`
`pro