`

`Office Action Summary
`
`09/970,124
`
`Examiner
`
`Art Unit
`
`Eric Kuiper
`2154
`•• The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address ••
`Period for Reply
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE J. MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`- Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1. 704(b).
`Status
`
`1 )[8] Responsive to communication(s) filed on 02 October 2001.
`2a)0 This action is FINAL.
`2b)[8] This action is non-final.
`3)0 Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`4)[8] Claim(s) 1-36 is/are pending in the application.
`4a) Of the above claim(s) __ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`5)0 Claim(s) __ is/are allowed.
`6)[8] Claim(s) 1-36 is/are rejected.
`7)[8] Claim(s) 8. 14 and 15 is/are objected to.
`8)0 Claim(s) __ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`9)0 The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`10)0 The drawing(s) filed on __ is/are: a)O accepted or b)O objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`11 )0 The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PT0-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)0 Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`a)O All b)O Some* c)O None of:
`1.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. __ .
`3.0 Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`1) [8] Notice of References Cited (PT0-892)
`2) 0 Notice of Draflsperson's Patent Drawing Review (PT0-948)
`3) [8] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PT0-1449 or PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s}/Mail Date __ .
`
`4) 0 Interview Summary (PT0-413}
`Paper No(s}/Mail Date. __ .
`5} 0 Notice of Informal Patent Application (PT0-152}
`6} 0 Other: __ .
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 7-05)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 01122006
`
`Ex.1002.002
`
`DELL
`
`

`

`••
`
`Application/Control Number: 09/970, 124
`Art Unit: 2154
`
`Page 2
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1-36 have been presented for examination.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Priority
`
`2.
`
`Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or
`
`more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U .S.C. [ 1] as follows:
`
`The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is
`
`also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or
`
`provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-
`
`filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of the first paragraph of 35
`
`U.S.C. 112. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32
`
`USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`The disclosures of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 09/067 ,544, now US-
`
`6,226,680, Application No. 09/141,713, now US-6,389,479, Application No. 09/384,792, now
`
`US-6,434,620, Application No. 09/416,925, now US-6,470,415, Application No. 09/439,603,
`
`now US-6,247,060, Application No. 09/464,283, now US-6,427,173, Application No.
`
`09/514,425, now US-6,427,171, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner
`
`provided by the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 for one or more claims of this application.
`
`Application No. 09/675,484, filed 09/29/2000, now US-6,807,581, is the first application
`
`to make reference to the iSCSI technology as found in claims 3, 9, 10, 16, 22, 24, 27, 31, 35 and
`
`36, therefore, these claims and their respective dependent claims will only be given a priority
`
`Ex.1002.003
`
`DELL
`
`

`

`•'
`
`Application/Control Number: 09/970, 124
`Art Unit: 2154
`
`Page 3
`
`date of 09/29/2000. All other claims are subject to the priority benefits of Provisional
`
`Application No. 60/061,809, filed 10/14/1997.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`3.
`
`Claims 8, 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14
`
`refers to "the fast-path processing of ( c )" and "slow-path processing in ( e ). " Claim 15 refers to
`
`"prior to the receiving of (b )." These appear to be references to indented portions of claim 8.
`
`For the purposes of examination, Examiner has assumed claim 8 to be constructed as follows:
`
`8. A method, comprising:
`
`(a) issuing a read request to a network storage device, the read request passing through a
`
`network to the network storage device;
`
`(b) receiving on a network interface device a packet from the network storage device in
`
`response to the read request, the packet including data, the network interface device being
`
`coupled to a host computer by a bus, the host computer having a protocol stack for carrying out
`
`network layer and transport layer processing;
`
`( c) perform.ing fast-path processing on the packet such that the data is placed into a
`
`destination memory without the protocol stack of the host computer doing any network layer
`
`processing on the packet and without the protocol stack of the host computer doing any transport
`
`layer processing on the packet;
`
`( d) receiving on the network interface device a subsequent packet from the network
`
`storage device in response to the read request, the subsequent packet including subsequent data;
`
`and
`
`Ex.1002.004
`
`DELL
`
`

`

`..
`
`Application/Control Number: 09/970, 124
`Art Unit: 2154
`
`Page 4
`
`( e) perfonning slow-path processing on the subsequent packet such that the protocol
`
`stack of the host computer does network layer processing and transport layer processing on the
`
`subsequent packet.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim Rejections- 35USC§102
`
`4.
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that fonn the
`
`basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
`
`(e) the invention was described in (I) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed
`in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for
`patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an
`international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this
`subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United
`States and was published under Article 21 (2) of such treaty in the English language.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Kapoor et
`
`al. (US 5,682,534, hereinafter Kapoor).
`
`6.
`
`As per claim 1, Kapoor discloses a computer that receives a response to a solicited read
`
`command (e.g. remote procedure call), the solicited read command being of a session layer
`
`protocol (e.g. Kapoor, col. 1, lines 41-54; col. 2, lines 33-36; col. 6, lines 10-19), the computer
`
`comprising:
`
`a host computer having a protocol stack and a destination memory, the protocol stack
`
`including a session layer portion, the session layer portion being for processing the session layer
`
`protocol (e.g. Kapoor, col. 1, lines 41-54; col. 2, lines 33-36; col. 6, lines 10-19); and
`
`Ex.1002.005
`
`DELL
`
`

`

`•
`
`Application/Control Number: 09/970, 124
`Art Unit: 2154
`
`Page 5
`
`a network interface device coupled to the host computer, the network interface device
`
`performing fast-path processing on the response such that a data portion of the response is placed
`
`into the destination memory without the protocol stack of the host computer performing any
`
`network layer processing or any transport layer processing on the response (e.g. Kapoor, col. 2,
`
`lines 33-49; col. 6, lines 7-19; Fig. 28).
`
`7.
`
`As per claim 2, Kapoor discloses the computer of claim 1, wherein the host computer
`
`comprises a files system, wherein the network interface device performs some session layer
`
`processing associated with the placing of the data portion into the destination memory, and
`
`wherein once the data portion is present in the destination memory the host performs additional
`
`session layer processing by responding to the file system (e.g. Kapoor, col. 3, lines 43-65).
`
`8.
`
`As per claim 5, Kapoor discloses the computer of claim 1, wherein the protocol stack of
`
`the host computer can process a second response to a second solicited read command of the
`
`session layer protocol, the protocol stack processing the second response such that the protocol
`
`stack performs both network layer processing and transport layer processing on the response
`
`(e.g. Kapoor, col. 5, lines 36-45).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35USC§103
`
`9.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented 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
`
`Ex.1002.006
`
`DELL
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 09/970, 124
`Art Unit: 2154
`
`Page 6
`
`having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the
`manner in which the invention was made.
`
`10.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459
`
`(1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35
`
`U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness
`or nonobviousness.
`
`11.
`
`Claims 3, 22, 24, 27, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Kapoor et al. (US 5,682,534, hereinafter Kapoor) in view of Van Meter et al. ("VISA:
`
`Netstation's Virtual Internet SCSI Adapter," hereinafter Van Meter).
`
`12.
`
`As per claim 3, Kapoor teaches the computer of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the
`
`session layer protocol is ISCSI.
`
`However, in a similar art, Van Meter teaches the use of an Internet SCSI adapter, which
`
`uses a TCP interface to attach to a network system (e.g. Van Meter, Abstract, Pg. 71).
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
`
`combine Van Meter with Kapoor because of the advantages of using an Internet SCSI protocol to
`
`connect a device over a network. Van Meter states this type of connection is advantageous
`
`because network-attached devices are shared more easily and reduce the server's workload. It
`
`allows clients to directly access the devices, without going through a server, which reduces
`
`latency and demands on its buses, memory and processors (e.g. Van Meter, Section 3.1 -
`
`Motivation, Pg. 72, 73). These advantages are beneficial in any computer network system.
`
`Ex.1002.007
`
`DELL
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 09/970, 124
`Art Unit: 2154
`
`Page 7
`
`13.
`
`As per claim 22, Kapoor teaches a computer adapted for receiving a response to a read
`
`request command (e.g. Kapoor, col. 1, lines 41 -54), the computer comprising:
`
`a host computer having a protocol stack and a destination memory (e.g. Kapoor, col. 1,
`
`lines 41-54; col. 2, lines 33-36; col. 6, lines 10-19); and
`
`a network interface device coupled to the host computer, the network interface device
`
`receiving a first portion of the response to the read request command, the first portion being
`
`processed such that a data portion of the first portion is placed into the destination memory of the
`
`host computer with the protocol stack of the host computer doing substantially no network layer
`
`or transport layer processing (e.g. Kapoor, col. 2, lines 33-49; col. 6, lines 7-19; Fig. 2B), the
`
`network interface device receiving a second portion of the response to the read request
`
`command, the protocol stack of the host computer doing network layer and transport layer
`
`processing on the second portion (e.g. Kapoor, col. 5, lines 36-45).
`
`Kapoor fails to teach the computer receiving a response to an ISCSI read request
`
`command; receiving a first portion of the response to the ISCSI read request command and
`
`receiving a second portion of the response io the I SCSI read request command.
`
`However, in a similar art, Van Meter teaches the use of an Internet SCSI adapter, which
`
`uses a TCP interface to attach storage and other devices to a network system (e.g. Van Meter,
`
`Abstract, Pg. 71).
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
`
`combine Van Meter with Kapoor for similar reasons as stated above in regards to claim 3.
`
`Ex.1002.008
`
`DELL
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 09/970, 124
`Art Unit: 2154
`
`Page 8
`
`14.
`
`As per claim 24, Kapoor and Van Meter teach the computer of claim 22, wherein the
`
`ISCSI read request command is passed from the host computerto the network interface device,
`
`the ISCSI read request command being accompanied by an indication of where the destination
`
`memory is located on the host computer (e.g. Kapoor, col. 10, lines 42-60; Van Meter, Abstract,
`
`Page 71).
`
`15.
`
`As per claim 27, Kapoor and Van Meter teach the computer of claim 22, wherein the
`
`response to the !SCSI read request command is received onto the computer via a single cable, the
`
`computer also receiving other network communications over the single cable, the other network
`
`communications not being !SCSI communications (e.g. Van Meter, Section 2 Netstation, Page
`
`71 and 72).
`
`16.
`
`As per claim 30, Kapoor and Van Meter teach the computer of claim 22, wherein an
`
`enclosure contains both the host computer and the network interface device (e.g. Van Meter,
`
`Section 2 - Netstation, Page 71 and 72).
`
`17.
`
`As per claim 31, Kapoor teaches a computer adapted for receiving a response to a read
`
`request command (e.g. Kapoor, col. 1, lines 41-54), the computer comprising:
`
`a host computer having a protocol stack and a destination memory (e.g. Kapoor, col. 1,
`
`lines 41-54; col. 2, lines 33-36; col. 6, lines 10-19); and
`
`means, coupled to the host computer for fast-path processing a portion of the response to
`
`the read request command, the portion including data, the portion being fast-path processed such
`
`Ex.1002.009
`
`DELL
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 09/970,124
`Art Unit: 2154
`
`Page 9
`
`that the data is placed into the destination memory on the host computer without the protocol
`
`stack of the host computer doing significant network layer or significant transport layer
`
`processing (e.g. Kapoor, col. 2, lines 33-49; col. 6, lines 7-19; Fig. 2B), the means also being for
`
`receiving a subsequent portion of the response to the read request command and for slow-path
`
`processing the subsequent portion such that the protocol stack of the host computer does network
`
`layer and transport layer processing on the subsequent portion (e.g. Kapoor, col. 5, lines 36-45).
`
`Kapoor fails to teach a computer adapted for receiving a response to an ISCSI read
`
`request command; means for fast-path processing a portion of the response to the ISCSI read
`
`request command; means for slow-path processing a subsequent portion of the response to the
`
`ISCSI read request command.
`
`However, in a similar art, Van Meter teaches the use of an Internet SCSI adapter, which
`
`uses a TCP interface to attach storage and other devices to a network system (e.g. Van Meter,
`
`Abstract, Pg. 71 ).
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
`
`combine Van Meter with Kapoor for similar reasons as stated above in regards to claim 3.
`
`18.
`
`Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kapoor et al. (US
`
`5,682,534, hereinafter Kapoor) in view of Jones et al. ("Methodology for Serializing
`
`Asynchronous Network Requests Over Multiple Paths," hereinafter Jones).
`
`19.
`
`As per claim 4, Kapoor teaches the computer of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the
`
`session layer protocol is SMB.
`
`Ex.1002.010
`
`DELL
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 09/970,124
`Art Unit: 2154
`
`Page 10
`
`However, in a similar art, Jones teaches the use of the SMB protocol in establishing
`
`NetBIOS session level connections between clients and servers (e.g. Jones, Page 151, Paragraphs
`
`4 and 5).
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
`
`combine Jones with Kapoor because of the advantages of using the SMB protocol for network
`
`connections. Jones states that the use.of the SMB protocol is advantageous because the "large
`
`block" or "raw" protocols it uses provide for more efficient request transfer between client and
`
`server by increasing the amount of data that can be transferred during each operation (e.g. Jones,
`
`Page 152, Paragraph 1). Jones also states another advantage of the SMB protocol being that the
`
`delivery of all data sent is guaranteed, no data will be lost or skipped without notification (e.g.
`
`Jones, Page 152, Paragraph 5). These are beneficial in any computer network system.
`
`20.
`
`Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kapoor et
`
`al. (US 5,682,534, hereinafter Kapoor) in view of Christenson (US 5,418,912, hereinafter
`
`Christenson).
`
`21.
`
`As per claim 6, Kapoor teaches the computer of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the
`
`response comprises a first packet and a second packet, the first packet including first data, and
`
`second packet including second data, wherein said data portion that is placed into the destination
`
`includes both the first data and the second data, and wherein the first data and the second data are
`
`placed into the destination together in a substantially contiguous manner.
`
`Ex.1002.011
`
`DELL
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 09/970, 124
`Art Unit: 2154
`
`Page 11
`
`However, in a similar art, Christenson teaches a session-level packet processing system,
`
`wherein a response is comprised of multiple packets, each containing data, the data being placed
`
`sequentially into a destination via the use of a FIFO queue and buffer (e.g. Christenson, col. 6,
`
`lines 20-52).
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
`
`combine Christenson with Kapoor because of the advantages of sending requests and commands
`
`over a network in the form of multiple packets containing data. Christenson states that
`
`controlling packet transmission in a network can optimize network resources and result in a fair
`
`amount of access by each client session (e.g. Christenson, col. 3, lines 7-20). The optimization
`
`of network resources can greatly improve the speed and efficiency of a network, while allowing
`
`fair access provides each client a relatively equal amount of that speed and efficiency, which is
`
`beneficial in any computer network system.
`
`22.
`
`As per claim 7, Kapoor teaches the computer of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the
`
`response comprises a first packet and a second packet, the first packet including first data, and
`
`second packet including second data, wherein said data portion that is placed into the destination
`
`includes the first data and the second data, the first data being placed into the destination before
`
`the second packet is received onto the network interface device.
`
`However, in a similar art, Christenson teaches a session-level packet processing system,
`
`wherein a response is comprised of multiple packets, each containing data, the data being placed
`
`sequentially into a destination via the use of a FIFO queue and buffer, which will place the first
`
`data prior to placing the second data (e.g. Christenson, col. 6, lines 20-52).
`
`Ex.1002.012
`
`DELL
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 09/970, 124
`Art Unit: 2154
`
`Page 12
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
`
`combine Christenson with Kapoor for similar reasons as stated above in regards to claim 6.
`
`23.
`
`Claims 8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Kapoor et al. (US 5,682,534, hereinafter Kapoor) in view of Eshel et al. (US 5,535,375,
`
`hereinafter Eshel).
`
`24.
`
`As per claim 8, Kapoor teaches a method, comprising:
`
`(a) issuing a read request, the read request passing through a network device (e.g.
`
`Kapoor, col. 1, lines 41-54; col. 2, lines 33-36; col. 3, lines 10-19);
`
`(b) receiving on a network interface device a packet in response to the read request, the
`
`packet including data, the network interface being coupled to a host computer by a bus, the host
`
`computer having a protocol stack for carrying out network layer and transport layer processing
`
`(e.g. Kapoor, col. 1, lines 41-54; col. 2, lines 33-36; col. 3, lines 10-19);
`
`(c) performing fast-path processing on the packet such that the data is placed into a
`
`destination memory without the protocol stack of the host computer doing any network layer
`
`processing on the packet and without the protocol stack of the host computer doing any transport
`
`layer processing on the packet (e.g. Kapoor, col. 2, lines 33-49; col. 6, lines 7-19; Fig. 2B);
`
`(d) receiving on the network interface device a subsequent packet in response to the read
`
`request, the subsequent packet including subsequent data (e.g. Kapoor, col. 5, lines 36-45); and
`
`Ex.1002.013
`
`DELL
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 09/970, 124
`Art Unit: 2154
`
`Page 13
`
`( e) performing slow-path processing on the subsequent packet such that the protocol
`
`stack of the host computer does network layer processing and transport layer processing on the
`
`subsequent packet (e.g. Kapoor, col. 5, lines 36-45).
`
`Kapoor fails to teach issuing a read request to a network storage device, the read request
`
`passing through a network to the network storage device; receiving on a network interface device
`
`a packet from the network storage device in response to the read request; receiving on the
`
`network interface device a subsequent packet from the network storage device in response to the
`
`read request.
`
`However, in a similar art, Eshel teaches the use of network attached storage devices that
`
`are able to send and receive read and write commands over a network (e.g. Eshel, col. 4, lines
`
`26-28; col. 8, lines 36-42).
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
`
`combine Eshel with Kapoor because of the advantages of using a network storage device in a
`
`computer network system. It is well known in the art to use a network to access, control and
`
`manage a storage device. Network accessible storage is a feature of nearly every network server
`
`computer. Allowing users to access network attached storage devices is advantageous since data
`
`can be stored in one central location, which can be easily accessed by all network users.
`
`Network storage can be used for archiving and backup purposes, greatly increasing the reliability
`
`and availability of data on a computer network, which is beneficial in any computer network
`
`system.
`
`Ex.1002.014
`
`DELL
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 09/970,124
`Art Unit: 2154
`
`Page 14
`
`25.
`
`As per claim 11, Kapoor and Eshel teach the method of claim 8, wherein the destination
`
`memory is part of the host computer (e.g. Kapoor, col. 6, lines 10-19).
`
`26.
`
`As per claim 12, Kapoor and Eshel teach the method of claim 8, wherein the destination
`
`memory is part of a second host computer, the second host computer being coupled to a second
`
`network interface device, the data and subsequent data being sent from the network interface
`
`device to the second network interface device via a network connection (e.g. Eshel, col. 3, lines
`
`10-15; col. 4, lines 18-23).
`
`27.
`
`As per claim 13, Kapoor and Eshel teach the method of claim 8, wherein the network
`
`storage device comprises a controller and a disk drive (e.g. Eshel, col. 4, lines 26-28; col. 8, lines
`
`36-42).
`
`28.
`
`As per claim 14, Kapoor and Eshel teach the method of claim 8, wherein the packet and
`
`the subsequent packet are associated with a connection context (e.g. Kapoor, col. 6, lines 28-36),
`
`the method further comprising:
`
`flushing the connection context from the network interface device to the host computer
`
`after the fast-path processing of ( c) but prior to the performing of slow-path processing in ( e)
`
`(e.g. Kapoor, col. 7, lines 66-67; col. 8, lines 42-60).
`
`29.
`
`As per claim 15, Kapoor and Eshel teach the method of claim 8, wherein prior to the
`
`receiving of (b) a first packet is received on the network interface device, the first packet being
`
`Ex.1002.015
`
`DELL
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 09/970,124
`Art Unit: 2154
`
`Page 15
`
`passed from the network interface device to the host computer, the host computer then passing to
`
`the network interface device an address of the destination memory (e.g. Kapoor, col. 10, lines
`
`42-60).
`
`30.
`
`Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kapoor
`
`et al. (US 5,682,534, hereinafter Kapoor) in view of Eshel et al. (US 5,535,375, hereinafter
`
`Eshel).as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Van Meter et al. ("VISA: Netstation's
`
`Virtual Internet SCSI Adapter," hereinafter Van Meter).
`
`31.
`
`As per claim 9, Kapoor and Eshel teach the method of claim 8, but fail to teach wherein
`
`the read request is in the form of a SCSI command, wherein the SCSI command is attached to a
`
`header in accordance with an ISCSI protocol.
`
`However, in a similar art, Van Meter teaches the use of an Internet SCSI adapter, which
`
`uses a TCP interface to attach storage and other devices to a network system (e.g. Van Meter,
`
`Abstract, Pg. 71).
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
`
`combine Van Meter with Kapoor because of the advantages of using an Internet SCSI protocol to
`
`connect a device over a network. Van Meter states this type of connection is advantageous
`
`because network-attached devices are shared more easily and reduce the server's workload. It
`
`allows clients to directly access the devices, without going through a server, which reduces
`
`latency and demands on its buses, memory and processors (e.g. Van Meter, Section 3.1 -
`
`Motivation, Pg. 72, 73). These advantages are beneficial in any computer network system.
`
`Ex.1002.016
`
`DELL
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 09/970, 124
`Art Unit: 2154
`
`Page 16
`
`32.
`
`As per claim 10, Kapoor and Eshel teach the method of claim 8, but fail to teach wherein
`
`the read request is an ISCSI read request.
`
`However, in a similar art, Van Meter teaches the use of an Internet SCSI adapter, which
`
`uses a TCP interface to attach storage and other devices to a network system (e.g. Van Meter,
`
`Abstract, Pg. 71).
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
`
`combine Van Meter with Kapoor for similar reasons as stated above in regards to claim 9.
`
`33.
`
`Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kapoor et
`
`al. (US 5,682,534, hereinafter Kapoor) in view of Eshel et al. (US 5,535,375, hereinafter Eshel)
`
`and in view of Van Meter et al. ("VISA: Netstation's Virtual Internet SCSI Adapter," hereinafter
`
`Van Meter) as applied to claims 8 and 10 above, and further in view of Johnson (US 6,591,310,
`
`hereinafter Johnson).
`
`34.
`
`As per claim 16, Kapoor, Eshel and Van Meter teach the method of claim 8, wherein the
`
`read request is an ISCSI read request, but fail to teach wherein the bus is a PCI bus.
`
`However, in a similar art, Johnson teaches a system for controlling the transmission of
`
`request replies that uses a PCI bus (e.g. Johnson, col. 13, lines 2-7).
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
`
`combine Johnson with Kapoor, Eshel and Van Meter because of the benefits of using the well-
`
`known PCI bus. Johnson states that the PCI bus is commonly used to provide a high-speed data
`
`Ex.1002.017
`
`DELL
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 09/970,124
`Art Unit: 2154
`
`Page 17
`
`path between the CPU and peripheral devices such as video, disk, network, etc. (e.g. Johnson,
`
`col. 13, lines 2-7). This is well known in the art and beneficial to any computer network system.
`
`35.
`
`As per claim 17, Kapoor, Eshel and Van Meter teach the method of claim 10, but fail to
`
`teach the method further comprising: sending a command status message from the network
`
`interface device to the host computer the command status message being sent after said fast-path
`
`processing on the packet and prior to said receiving of the subsequent packet on the network
`
`interface device.
`
`However, in a similar art, Johnson teaches a system for controlling transmission of
`
`request replies and command status messages being sent from the host device after various
`
`procedures have been accomplished (e.g. Johnson, col. 6, lines 57-67; col. 7, lines 1-10; col. 10,
`
`lines 9-16).
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
`
`combine Johnson with Kapoor, Eshel and Van Meter because of the benefits of using a command
`
`status message when communicating over a computer network. Johnson states that the use of
`
`this type of command status reply messages can simplify processing and reduce overall system
`
`cost while increasing design flexibility and versatility (e.g. Johnson, col. 5, lines 46-67). These
`
`are benefits in any computer network system.
`
`36.
`
`As per claim 18, Kapoor, Eshel, Van Meter and Johnson teach the method of claim 17,
`
`wherein the command status message includes an indication that the read request command was
`
`Ex.1002.018
`
`DELL
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 09/970, 124
`Art Unit: 2154
`
`Page 18
`
`sent from the network interface device (e.g. Johnson, col. 6, likes 57-67; col. 7, lines 1-10; col.
`
`10, lines 45-67; Table in col. 11, lines 1-33).
`
`37.
`
`As per claim 19, Kapoor, Eshel, Van Meter and Johnson teach the method of claim 17,
`
`wherein the command status message includes an indication that an error condition has occurred
`
`(e.g. Johnson, col. 6, likes 57-67; col. 7, lines 1-10; col. 10, lines 45-67; Table in col. 11, lines 1-
`
`33).
`
`38.
`
`As per claim 20, Kapoor, Eshel, Van Meter and Johnson teach the method of claim 17,
`
`wherein the command status message identifies a portion of the destination memory (e.g.
`
`Johnson, col. 6, likes 57-67; col. 7, lines 1-10; col. 10, lines 45-67; Table in col. 11, lines 1-33).
`
`39.
`
`As per claim 21, Kapoor, Eshel, Van Meter and Johnson teach the method of claim 17,
`
`wherein the command status message includes an identifier, the identifier being indicative of the
`
`read request (e.g. Johnson, col. 6, likes 57-67; col. 7, lines 1-10; col. 10, lines 45-67; Table in
`
`col. 11, lines 1-33).
`
`40.
`
`Claims 23, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a