Ex Parte 7987311 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 21, 2018

90013707 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2018)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
90/013,707 03/24/2016 7987311 G1309-00003 2121
44654 7590 05/21/2018
Sprinkle IP Law Group
1301 W. 25th Street
Suite 408
Austin, TX 78705
EXAMINER
HOTALING, JOHN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2018 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2018-001485
Reexamination Control 90/013,707
Patent 7,987,311 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, STEPHEN C. SIU, and NEIL T. POWELL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

This proceeding arose out of a request for ex parte reexamination of
U.S. Patent No. 7,987,311 B2 (“the ’311 patent”) to Geoffrey B. Hoese and
Jeffry T. Russell, entitled Storage Router and Method for Providing Virtual
Local Storage, issued July 26, 2011.
Appeal 2018-001485
Reexamination Control 90/013,707
Patent 7,987,311 B2

2
Patent Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) and 306 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–28. App. Br. 1.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The disclosed invention relates generally to network storage devices.
See Spec 2:27–31.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A storage router for providing virtual local storage on
remote storage devices, comprising:
a first controller operable to connect to a first transport
medium, wherein the first medium is a serial transport medium;
a second controller operable to connect to a second
transport medium; and
a processing device coupled to the first controller, wherein
the processing device is configured to:
maintain a map to allocate storage space on the remote
storage devices to devices connected to the first transport medium
by associating representations of the devices connected to the first
transport medium with representations of storage space on the
remote storage devices, wherein each representation of a device
connected to the first transport medium is associated with one or
more representations of storage space on the remote storage
devices;
control access from the devices connected to the first
transport medium to the storage space on the remote storage
devices in accordance with the map and using native low level
block protocol, further comprising:
for a device connected to the first transport medium,
identifying LUNs for storage space allocated to that device in the
map;

1 Appeal Brief in Ex Parte Reexamination, filed July 5, 2017 (“App. Br.”).
Appeal 2018-001485
Reexamination Control 90/013,707
Patent 7,987,311 B2

3
presenting to that device only the identified LUNs as
available storage space; and
processing native low level block requests directed to the
identified LUNs from that device to allow access to the storage
space associated with the identified LUNs.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–10, 12–14, 16, 19–26, and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over CRD-5500 Manual2 and HP
Journal3 (Final Rej. 5); claims 2, 3, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over CRD-5500 Manual, HP Journal, CRD-5500 OEM
Manual4 and Mizuno5 (Final Rej. 6); claims 11 and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over CRD-5500 Manual, HP Journal, and Fibre
Channel Standard6 (Final Rej. 6); and claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over CRD-5500 Manual, HP Journal, and Bergsten7 (Final
Rej. 7).8

2 CRD-5500 - SCSI RAID Controller User’s Manual, CMD Technology,
Inc., 1996 (“CRD-5500 Manual”).
3 Hewlett-Packard Journal, Vol. 47, No. 5, Oct. 1996 (“HP Journal”).
4 CRD-5500 – SCSI RAID Controller OEM Manual, CMD Technology, Inc.,
1996 (“CRD-5500 OEM Manual”).
5 U.S. Patent No. 5,838,891, Issued November 17, 1998 (“Mizuno”).
6 Fibre Channel – Physical and Signaling Interface (FC-PH), Rev. 4.3,
June 1, 1994 (“Fibre Channel Standard”).
7 U.S. Patent No. 6,073,209, Issued June 6, 2000 (“Bergsten”).
8 The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims over non-statutory double
patenting. Ans. 51.
Appeal 2018-001485
Reexamination Control 90/013,707
Patent 7,987,311 B2

4
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–28?

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites maintaining “a map to allocate storage space on the
remote storage devices to devices connected to the first transport medium by
associating representations of the devices connected to the first transport
medium with representations of storage space on the remote storage devices,
wherein each representation of a device connected to the first transport
medium is associated with one or more representations of storage space on
the remote storage devices” and controlling “access from the devices
connected to the first transport medium to the storage space on the remote
storage devices in accordance with the map.”
The Examiner finds that CRD-5500 Manual discloses this feature.
Final Rej. 8–17. We agree with the Examiner. For example, CRD-5500
Manual discloses a CRD-5500 controller that “maps” storage space on
remote storage devices (e.g., an arrangement of disk drives) to devices (e.g.,
a “Host”) connected to a first transport medium (e.g., a SCSI) and
controlling access from the devices (i.e., from any one of the “Hosts”)
connected to the first transport medium (i.e., any one of the SCSI) to the
storage space on the remote storage devices. See, e.g., CRD-5500 Manual
Figs. 1-1 and 1-2. See also, CRD-5500 Manual p. 4–5 (“CQ-1004/Page 44
of 92”).
Appeal 2018-001485
Reexamination Control 90/013,707
Patent 7,987,311 B2

5
Patent Owner argues that CRD-5500 Manual discloses SCSI busses
that are “channels” but fails to “distinguish between hosts connected to the
storage router by [the] same transport medium [i.e., SCSI busses] such that
host access is individually controlled even though the hosts are connected by
the same transport medium.” App. Br. 28. Patent Owner further argues that
“HP Journal does not make up for this deficiency.” App. Br. 29. As Patent
Owner indicates, claim 1 recites allocating “storage space on the remote
storage devices to devices connected to the first transport medium by
associating representations of the devices connected to the first transport
medium with representations of storage space on the remote storage devices,
wherein each representation of a device connected to the first transport
medium is associated with one or more representations of storage space on
the remote storage devices.” App. Br. 28–29. Patent Owner does not
demonstrate persuasively claim 1, claim 16, or any other disputed claim also
recites distinguishing between hosts connected to the storage router by the
same transport medium such that host access is individually controlled even
though the hosts are connected by the same transport medium. Therefore,
we need not consider whether or not CRD-550 manual or HP Journal
discloses this unclaimed feature.
Patent Owner reproduces various portions of claim 1 and argues that
claim 1 “require[s] that the storage router distinguish between multiple host
devices connected to the storage router on a single transport medium to
individually control storage access by the host devices even though the host
Appeal 2018-001485
Reexamination Control 90/013,707
Patent 7,987,311 B2

6
devices are connected to the storage router by the same single transport
medium.” See App. Br. 18–19. However, none of Patent Owner’s cited
portions of claim 1 recite the proposed claim limitation. We are not
persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
Patent Owner argues that the Specification discloses an example (i.e.,
Fig. 3) in which “multiple hosts [are] connected to storage router 56 by the
same single transport medium” and “distinguish[ing] between the multiple
hosts . . . connected . . .by the same single transport medium” to
“distinguish[] between the [multiple hosts] . . . to individually associate each
of the [multiple hosts] connected to the same single transport medium . . .
with its corresponding assigned storage so that host access to storage is
individually controlled even though the [multiple hosts] are connected to
storage router 56 by the same transport medium.” App. Br. 22. In other
words, Patent Owner argues that the Specification discloses a requirement
that multiple host devices must be connected to a storage router by the same
single transport medium and the system must distinguish between the
multiple host devices to map for each host what storage is available. We are
not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
The Specification discloses that “FIG. 3 is a block diagram of one
embodiment of a storage network.” Spec. 4:27–28. Hence, the
Specification discloses that Fig. 3 is one example of a storage network but
does not disclose that any specific feature of the example disclosed in Fig. 3
is required. In fact, the Specification discloses that “various changes,
Appeal 2018-001485
Reexamination Control 90/013,707
Patent 7,987,311 B2

7
substitutions, and alterations can be made [to the examples disclosed in the
Specification].” Spec. 9:29–30. Patent Owner does not explain persuasively
why specific features allegedly disclosed in an example in the Specification
must be imported into the claims, the example in the Specification of which
may be changed, substituted, or altered.
In any event, even assuming that claim 1, for example, requires
multiple host devices on a transport medium and mapping “for each host
what storage is available,” as Patent Owner contends, CRD 5500 Manual
discloses this feature. For example, CRD 5500 Manual discloses a multiple
host environment (App. Br. 29–30, CRD 5500 Manual Fig. 6-8 – i.e.,
multiple host devices on a transport medium) and “assign[ing] redundancy
groups to a particular host.” Figs. 1-1, 1-2 (i.e., providing storage for each
host).
Patent Owner argues that CRD-5500 Manual fails to “differentiate
storage access between the multiple hosts on the same channel.” App.
Br. 29–30. Claim 1 recites maintaining a map to allocate storage space on
the remote storage devices to devices connected to the first transport
medium, controlling access from the devices to the storage space on the
remote storage devices by identifying LUNs allocated to that device and
presenting to that device only the identified LUNs as available storage
space. As previously indicated, CRD-5500 Manual discloses these features.
We do not identify and Patent Owner does not indicate that claim 1 also
recites differentiating storage access between the multiple hosts on the same
Appeal 2018-001485
Reexamination Control 90/013,707
Patent 7,987,311 B2

8
channel. Therefore, we need not consider whether or not CRD-5500
discloses this feature.
Patent Owner also argues that HP Journal fails to make up for the
deficits of CRD-5500 Manual (App. Br. 30–31) but fails to demonstrate
persuasively a specific deficit of CRD-5500. See above.
Patent Owner does not provide additional arguments in support of the
other disputed claims or additional arguments with respect to CRD-5500
OEM Manual, Mizuno, Fibre Channel Standard, or Bergsten.
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED