IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 31046.7
`Customer No.:
`27683
`
`Real Parties in Interest:
`Cisco Systems, Inc.
`Quantum Corporation
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`In re patent of Hoese
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`Issued: May 23, 2006
`
`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 Ex. 1003, pg. 1
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 31046.7
`Customer No.:
`27683
`
`Real Parties in Interest:
`Cisco Systems, Inc.
`Quantum Corporation
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`In re patent of Hoese
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`Issued: May 23, 2006
`
`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 Ex. 1003, pg. 1
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3
`I.
`II. Qualifications and Professional Experience ........................................................ 5
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................................... 7
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards .................................................................................... 8
`V. The ’147 Patent .................................................................................................... 9
`A. Overview ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`B. History of the ’147 Patent ........................................................................... 15
`
`VI. Claim Construction ............................................................................................ 16
`A. “maps between the device and the remote storage devices” ...................... 18
`
`B. “native low level block protocol” ............................................................... 20
`
`C. “remote” ...................................................................................................... 23
`
`VII. Challenge: Claims 1-39 are obvious over the CRD-5500 Manual in
`view of the HP Journal ................................................................................ 25
`A. The CRD-5500 Manual .............................................................................. 26
`
`B. The HP Journal ........................................................................................... 32
`
`C. Reasons to Combine the CRD-5500 Manual and the HP Journal.............. 33
`
`D. Detailed Analysis ........................................................................................ 38
`
`VIII. Declaration .................................................................................................215
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`–2–
`
`
`
`Oracle 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.
`
`7,051,147 (“the ’147 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 ’147 Patent, CQ-1001;
`
`(2) The prosecution history of the ’147 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 Ex. 1003, pg. 3
`
`
`
`(6)
`
`Sun Microsystems Computer Company, SPARCstorage Array
`
`Configuration Guide, Revision A, March 1995 (“SPARCstorage
`
`Guide”), CQ-1007;
`
`(7)
`
`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-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) American National Standard of Accredited Standards Committee X3,
`
`Small Computer System Interface – 2 (X3T9.2), Rev. 10L, September
`
`7, 1993, CQ-1010; and
`
`(10) American National Standard for Information Systems, Fibre Channel
`
`Physical and Signaling Interface (FC-PH) X3.230, Rev. 4.3, June 1,
`
`1994, CQ-1011.
`
`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
`
`
`
`–4–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 4
`
`
`
`(3) My knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area, as
`
`described below.
`
`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
`
`
`
`–5–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 5
`
`
`
`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
`
`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,
`
`–6–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 6
`
`
`
`systems, interfaces, networks, and architectures, and had first-hand experience with
`
`these technologies at the relevant time of the ’147 Patent invention and before.
`
`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 ’147 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 ’147 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
`
`
`
`–7–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 7
`
`
`
`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
`
`13.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`claims 1-39 of the ’147 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
`
`
`
`–8–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 8
`
`
`
`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;
`
`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 ’147 Patent
`
`A. Overview
`
`15. The ’147 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 ’147 Patent has seven independent
`
`claims (claims 1, 6, 10, 14, 21, 28, and 34) and a total of 39 claims. Claim 1
`
`provides a basic overview of the teachings of the ’147 Patent:
`
`1. A storage router for providing virtual local storage on
`remote storage devices to a device, comprising:
`
`
`
`–9–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 9
`
`
`
`a buffer providing memory work space for the storage router;
`a first Fibre Channel controller operable to connect to and
`interface with a first Fibre Channel transport medium;
`a second Fibre Channel controller operable to connect to and
`interface with a second Fibre Channel transport medium; and
`a supervisor unit coupled to the first and second Fibre Channel
`controllers and the buffer, the supervisor unit operable:
`to maintain a configuration for remote storage devices
`connected to the second Fibre Channel transport medium that
`maps between the device and the remote storage devices and
`that implements access controls for storage space on the remote
`storage devices; and
`to process data in the buffer to interface between the first
`Fibre Channel controller and the second Fibre Channel
`controller to allow access from Fibre Channel initiator devices
`to the remote storage devices using native low level, block
`protocol in accordance with the configuration.
`
`16. As noted by the background section of the ’147 specification, various
`
`types of communication links supporting different communication distances were
`
`known in the art at the time of the ’147 invention. For example, the ’147
`
`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
`
`
`
`–10–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 10
`
`
`
`kilometers). (CQ-1001, 1:30-39; 2:36-42). According to the specification, the
`
`storage router of the ’147 Patent utilizes the large distances provided for by Fibre
`
`Channel to provide workstations with access to “significantly remote” storage
`
`devices. (CQ-1001, 2:40-42).
`
`17. Figure 3 of the ’147 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, 4:10-
`
`19; Fig. 3). The ’147 specification describes the storage router as “a bridge device
`
`that connects a Fiber Channel link directly to a SCSI bus.” (CQ-1001, 5:46-50).
`
`The storage router enables the exchange of SCSI commands and data between the
`
`workstations and the storage devices. (CQ-1001, 5:46-50). According to the
`
`specification, a “SCSI command” is one example of a native low level block
`
`protocol command. (CQ-1001, 5:46-50; 4:15-19). 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, 6:44-56). I note that encapsulating low level commands such
`
`
`
`–11–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 11
`
`
`
`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 ’147
`
`invention. (CQ-1006, pp. 94-95).
`
`Workstations
`
`Storage Router
`
`SCSI Bus
`
`Fibre Channel link
`
`Storage devices
`
`CQ-1001, Fig. 3 (annotated)
`
`
`
`18.
`
`In addition to the mode of operation shown in association with Fig. 3,
`
`the ’147 specification also notes that the “storage router has various modes of
`
`operation.” (CQ-1001, 6:31). 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, 6:31-35). With
`
`
`
`–12–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 12
`
`
`
`regard to the Fibre Channel-to-Fibre Channel mode of operation, the specification
`
`states that the storage router may “act as a bridge between two FC loops.” (CQ-
`
`1001, 6:42-43).
`
`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, 4:26-35). 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, 4:32-35). Further, the ’147
`
`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, 4:20-26, 4:56-66). As discussed below
`
`in more detail, it was well known in the art at the time of the ’147 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 ’147 specification, the storage router uses the
`
`mapping functionality to facilitate both routing and access control. (CQ-1001,
`
`5:37-39). 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
`
`
`
`–13–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 13
`
`
`
`“what partition is being addressed by a particular request,” thus enabling it to
`
`“distribute[] requests and data” to storage devices. (CQ-1001, 9:11-14, 4:2-5).
`
`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, 9:5-17). For example, in Fig. 3, “subsets 66,
`
`68, 70 and 72 can only be accessed by the associated workstation 58.” (CQ-1001,
`
`4:35-37). I have annotated Fig. 3 below to illustrate the general flow of I/O
`
`commands in the storage network of the ’147 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 ’147 invention. (CQ-
`
`1004, p. 1-2, 4-5).
`
`
`
`–14–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 14
`
`
`
`(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
`
`
`
`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 ’147 invention, it is my
`
`opinion that the storage network described by the ’147 Patent is simply a collection
`
`of components that were well known in the art at the ’147 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 ’147 Patent
`
`
`
`–15–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 15
`
`
`
`22. The ’147 Patent issued on May 23, 2006, from U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 10/658,163 (“the ’163 application”) filed on September 9, 2003 by
`
`Geoffrey B. Hoese and Jeffry T. Russell. The ’147 Patent claims priority back to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,941,972 (“the ’972 Patent”), filed on December 31, 1997, via a
`
`string of intervening continuation applications.
`
`23. Based on my review of the prosecution history of the ’163 application,
`
`it appears the Patent Office did not substantively consider either the CRD-5500
`
`Manual or the HP Journal in view of the claims of the ’147 Patent. (CQ-1002, pp.
`
`205-213, 373-377, 404-407).
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`
`24.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’147
`
`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
`
`
`
`–16–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 16
`
`
`
`entirety of the ’147 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 ’147 Patent. In particular, I reviewed the claim construction order
`
`from the Crossroads v. 3Par district court case1, which construes claim terms
`
`recited in U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035. I note that the ’035 Patent is a family
`
`member of the ’147 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 District Court’s constructions.
`
`26. The following table summarizes my claim constructions. My analysis
`
`of each claim term follows.
`
`Claim Term
`“maps between the device and
`the remote storage devices”
`
`Claim Construction
`To allocate storage on the storage devices to
`devices to facilitate routing and access
`controls
`“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
`
`“remote”
`
`
`1 Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. 3PAR, Inc., et. al., case no. 1-10-cv-00652 (W.D.
`
`Tex. 2010).
`
`
`
`–17–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 17
`
`
`
`distance greater than allowed by a
`conventional parallel network interconnect
`
`A.
`
`“maps between the device and the remote storage devices”
`
`27. The above claim term is found in claim 1. The other independent
`
`claims 6, 10, 14, 21, 28, and 34 include similar language.
`
`28.
`
`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).
`
`29. Based on my review of the ’147 Patent, it appears that the
`
`specification does not provide an explicit definition for the above claim term. I
`
`note, however, that the ’147 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
`
`
`
`–18–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 18
`
`
`
`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, 4:26-38, 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, 9:5-17, emphasis
`added).
`
`Additionally, dependent claim 2 recites:
`
`The storage router of claim 1, wherein the configuration maintained
`by the supervisor unit includes an allocation of subsets of storage
`space to associated Fibre Channel devices, wherein each subset is
`only accessible by the associated Fibre Channel device. (CQ-1001,
`9:48-52).
`
`30. Based on the above, it appears that in the context of the ’147 patent
`
`mapping generally refers to the allocation of partitioned storage space to initiator
`
`
`
`–19–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 19
`
`
`
`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, 4:2-5). 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, 4:35-37).
`
`At least in one instance, the storage router stores the allocations of subsets of
`
`storage to initiators in one or more “mapping tables.” (CQ-1001, 4:26-29).
`
`Further, dependent claim 2 appears to clarify the mapping language recited in
`
`independent claim 1.
`
`31.
`
`It is therefore my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand the broadest reasonable interpretation of “maps between the
`
`device and the remote storage devices” in view of the specification to include at
`
`least: “to allocate storage on the storage devices to devices to facilitate routing
`
`and access controls.”
`
`B.
`
`“native low level block protocol”
`
`32. The claim term “native low level block protocol” is found in claims 1,
`
`6, 10, 14, 21, 28, and 34.
`
`33.
`
`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
`
`
`
`–20–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 20
`
`
`
`exchange information and do not involve the overhead of high level protocols and
`
`file systems typically required by network servers.” (CQ-1009, p. 13).
`
`34. Based on my review of the ’147 Patent, it appears that the
`
`specification does not provide an explicit definition for “native low level block
`
`protocol.” I note, however, that the ’147 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
`network server 14 communicates with storage devices 20 via native
`low level, block protocols. (CQ-1001, 3:27-36, 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, 4:32-
`38, emphasis added).
`
`
`
`–21–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 21
`
`
`
`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,
`5:13-17, 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, 5:46-50, 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, 6:44-
`56, emphasis added).
`
`35. Based on the above, it appears that in the context of the ’147 Patent
`
`native low level block protocols are storage protocols that access storage space on
`
`
`
`–22–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 22
`
`
`
`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, 3:27-36). Further, according to the specification, a
`
`“SCSI command” is one example of a native low level block protocol command.
`
`(CQ-1001, 5:46-50; 4:15-19). 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, 6:44-56).
`
`36.
`
`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.”
`
`C.
`
`“remote”
`
`37. The claim term “remote” is found in claims 1, 4, 10, 13-15, 17-19, 21,
`
`28, and 34.
`
`38.
`
`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-1009, p. 12).
`
`39. Based on my review of the ’147 Patent, it appears that the
`
`
`
`–23–
`
`
`
`Oracle Ex. 1003, pg. 23
`
`
`
`specification does not provide an explicit definition for “remote.” I note, however,
`
`that the ’147 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
`enhanced capability to attach a large number of high speed devices
`to a common storage transport medium over large distances. (CQ-
`1001, 1:30-38).
`
`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, 2:36-42).
`
`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 it
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
