Ex Parte Lubbers et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 28, 2010

10043924 (B.P.A.I. May. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte CLARK E. LUBBERS,
KEITH D. WOESTEHOFF, MASAMI Y. HUA,
RICHARD P. HELLIWELL, RANDY L. ROBERSON,
and ROBERT G. BEAN
____________
Appeal 2009-005093
Application 10/043,9241
Technology Center 2400
____________
Decided: May 28, 2010
____________
Before LEE E. BARRETT, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 Filed October 22, 2001, titled "System and Method for Interfacing
with Virtual Storage." The real party in interest is Hewlett Packard
Development Company.
Appeal 2009-005093
Application 10/043,924

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention
The invention relates to a management of a virtualized storage system.
Storage virtualization generally refers to systems that provide transparent
abstraction of storage at the block level. In essence, virtualization separates
out logical data access from physical data access, allowing users to create
virtual disks from pools of storage that are allocated to network-coupled
hosts as logical storage when needed. Virtual storage eliminates the
physical one-to-one relationship between servers and storage devices. The
physical disk devices and distribution of storage capacity become
transparent to servers and applications. Spec. ¶ 0008.2
The user interface implemented by prior network storage controllers
implemented the logical-to-physical mapping. As physical disks were added
to, removed from, failed, or otherwise became inaccessible, the logical-to-
physical mapping had to be updated to reflect the changes. An object of the
invention is to provide a mass storage system in which a user interfaces only
to virtual entities and is isolated from the underlying physical storage
implementation. Spec. ¶ 0012.
The invention provides "logical disks" which are a virtualization of
physical storage capacity. "Logical disk objects 722 are the fundamental
storage unit accessible by the storage management system and are analogous
to physical disk drives in prior storage management systems." Spec. ¶ 0057.

2 We refer to the paragraph numbers of the Specification as filed.
Appeal 2009-005093
Application 10/043,924

3
"Virtual disks" are created from these logical disks and the virtual disks are
managed through a management interface. "One feature of the management
system in accordance with the present invention is that it creates these
virtual disks from logical disks rather than from physical disks as was done
by previous systems." Spec. ¶ 0022. See claim 1.
The "virtual disk object" may comprise a "SCVD disk object," a
"derived disk object," and a "presented disk object" in addition to the
"logical disk object." Spec. 0055; Figure 8. The SCVD object provides
specified virtual disk performance behaviors. Spec. ¶ 0060. The derived
disk object adds protocol personality. Spec. ¶ 0061. The presented disk
object provides an association between a storage cell client object (e.g., a
host) or a group of storage cell client objects and a derived disk.
Spec. ¶ 0062. See claim 14.
Figures 1 and 2 show a storage pool 101 having an arbitrarily large
quantity of storage space. Within pool 101, logical device allocation
domains (LDADs) 103 are defined. LDADs correspond to a set of physical
storage devices from which virtual disks 102 may be allocated.
Spec. ¶ 0027. For example, LDAD 103 may have four to several thousand
disk drives. Spec. ¶ 0034. See claim 9.

Appeal 2009-005093
Application 10/043,924

4
Illustrative claims
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are reproduced below.

1. A system for managing virtualized data storage, comprising:

a virtualized logical disk object representing a virtual storage
container, wherein the virtualized logical disk is an abstract
representation of physical storage capacity provided by plurality of
physical stores; and

a virtual disk object representing a virtual storage container,
wherein the virtual disk object is an abstract representation of one or
more virtualized logical disk objects, the virtual disk object including
an exposed management interface; and

wherein the virtual disk object is managed through the
management interface to select the one or more logical disk objects
represented by the virtual disk object.

9. A method for managing virtual storage in a storage area
network, the method comprising:

providing at least one network storage controller coupled to a
plurality of physical disk drives implementing physical storage
capacity;

creating a physical store object representing each of the
plurality of physical disk drives;

specifying at least some of the plurality of physical disk drives
for inclusion in a storage cell;

Appeal 2009-005093
Application 10/043,924

5
creating a storage cell object representing the storage cell
wherein the physical store objects corresponding to the specified
physical disk drives are included in the created storage cell.

17. A method for facilitating management of virtual storage in a
storage area network enabling a user can flexibly present a virtual disk
to a host, comprising:

connecting a host to a network storage controller (NSC) via a
host agent capable of communicating command-response traffic with
logical objects implemented in the network storage controller;

creating a logical disk object representing a virtual storage
container, wherein the logical disk is an abstract representation of
physical storage capacity provided by plurality of physical stores;

adding a storage protocol to the logical disk object using a
derived disk object in response to a user protocol selection;

associating the derived object with a host using a presented disk
object referencing the host agent in response to a user host selection;
and

creating a virtual disk object comprising the logical disk object,
the derived disk object and the presented disk object.

The reference

Lagueux US 6,538,669 B1 Mar. 25, 2003
(filed Jul. 15, 1999)

Appeal 2009-005093
Application 10/043,924

6
The rejection
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Lagueux.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
"Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of
all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim." Connell v.
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

FINDINGS OF FACT
Lagueux relates to management and configuration of storage
transactions in intelligent storage area networks (ISANs). Col. 1, ll. 23-25.
Storage area networks (SANs) connect a number of mass storage
systems in a communication network which is optimized for storage
transactions. Col. 1, ll. 37-42. An SAN is optimized to provide high
bandwidth and high throughput storage for client computers such as file
servers, web servers, and end user computers. Col. 5, ll. 21-26. An ISAN
server provides additional functionality beyond data storage and retrieval
such as storage routing and virtual device management. Col. 5, ll. 26-29.
Figure 2 shows a block diagram of an ISAN server having connection
options 130 including a set of communication interfaces adapted for users
and other data processing functions, and storage options 128 including a set
of communication interfaces adapted for storage devices. Col. 6, ll. 21-38.
Lagueux provides a user interface for use in configuring a storage
server for management of storage resources. Col. 1, l. 66 to col. 2, l. 1. The
Appeal 2009-005093
Application 10/043,924

7
user interface includes tools to configure virtual devices and virtual circuits,
having a logical address such as a logical unit (LUN) number and target
device identifier, to a set of physical storage devices coupled to
communication interfaces in the storage server. Col. 2, ll. 22-27.
Lagueux describes storage transactions using Logical Unit Numbers
(LUNs), which provide "logical addresses." Col. 3, ll. 12-15. For example,
as described at column 7, lines 50-60, using the SCSI-3 protocol, each
storage device has an identifier (ID), the machine issuing a storage request is
called the initiator, and the machine responding to the request is called a
target. The SCSI-3 protocol also provides for two addressing components of
a LUN and an address. A LUN specifies a subcomponent of the target ID,
so that two devices might share an ID but have different LUNs. The address
is the address where data is to be read from or stored to.
Lagueux describes that software components are implemented as
device driver modules (DDMs). A DDM that primarily services requests for
a hardware device is termed a hardware driver module (HDM). A DDM that
serves as an internal, intermediate program is termed an intermediate service
module (ISM). Col. 12, ll. 13-19. An ISM that performs a mirror
management data path task is shown in Figure 9. Logic 652 communicates
with a plurality of drive interfaces including primary, secondary, tertiary,
and standby drives. Col. 14, ll. 24-43. Figure 12 shows a mirror function
with interfaces to four disks, (01)-(04). Col. 15, ll. 35-44.
Lagueux describes that users may specify the storage elements that
will be part of an array. Col. 25, ll. 34-46.
Appeal 2009-005093
Application 10/043,924

8
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-8
Issue
Does Lagueux teach "a virtualized logical disk object . . . , wherein
the virtualized logical disk is an abstract representation of physical storage
capacity provided by plurality of physical stores" and "a virtual disk object
. . . , wherein the virtual disk object is an abstract representation of one or
more virtualized logical disk objects," as recited in claim 1?

Analysis
It is important to understand that the claimed invention involves two
distinct elements. "Logical disks" are a virtualization of physical storage
capacity and "virtual disks" are created from these logical disks. That is,
"[o]ne feature of the management system in accordance with the present
invention is that it creates these virtual disks from logical disks rather than
from physical disks as was done by previous systems." Spec. ¶ 0022.
Appellants acknowledge that it was known to create virtual disks from
physical disks. ¶ 0008. The question is whether Lagueux has two levels of
abstract representation.
In the Final Office Action (FOA), the Examiner appears to rely on the
LUN for both the logical disk and the virtual disk. FOA 2-3. Appellants
argue that a single LUN cannot be both elements. Br. 9-10. Appellants
argue that Lagueux does not describe a virtual disk object which is an
Appeal 2009-005093
Application 10/043,924

9
abstract representation of a logical disk and therefore also does not disclose
that a virtual disk object is managed. Br. 11-12.
The Examiner modifies the interpretation of Lagueux to find that
ISAN server 102A corresponds to a virtual disk object and a LUN
corresponds to a logical disk object, referring to column 2, lines 22-27.
Ans. 6-7. The Examiner refers to column 22, lines 66-67 for the claimed
management interface. Ans. 7.
Appellants reply that nothing in column 2 of Lagueux teaches that the
ISAN server 102A provides an abstract representation of virtualized logical
disk objects or that it manages a virtual disk object. Reply Br. 3-5.
Initially, we agree with Appellants that a LUN cannot be both a
logical disk object and a virtual disk object since this would read limitations
out of the claim. The Examiner does not explain how Lagueux teaches
creating virtual disks from logical disks and we do not find this teaching in
Lagueux. A LUN specifies a subcomponent of the target ID, which
indicates that a LUN is an abstract representation of the physical storage, not
of a logical disk. We find no teaching of then creating a virtual disk from a
LUN logical disk as would be necessary to meet the claim language. The
ISAN server maps a SCSI-3 storage transaction request to a LUN, but we
find no teaching of the ISAN server creating virtual disks from the LUNs as
the Examiner apparently contends. Appellants describe that a LUN can be a
virtual disk which is an abstract representation of physical storage,
Spec. ¶ 0032, but the claims require that the virtual disk is an abstract
representation of a logical disk, which is not taught. Lagueux is a relatively
Appeal 2009-005093
Application 10/043,924

10
complex reference that does not specifically relate to Appellants' invention;
therefore, a more extensive explanation is required to show how the claim
language is anticipated. Manifestly, if there is no virtual disk object which is
an abstract representation of a logical disk object, there can be no
management of the virtual disk object as claimed.

Conclusion
Lagueux does not teach "a virtualized logical disk object . . . , wherein
the virtualized logical disk is an abstract representation of physical storage
capacity provided by plurality of physical stores" and "a virtual disk object
. . . , wherein the virtual disk object is an abstract representation of one or
more virtualized logical disk objects," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly,
the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2-8 is reversed.

Claim 9-16
Claims 9-12
Issue
Does Lagueux teach "specifying at least some of the plurality of
physical disk drives for inclusion in a storage cell" and "creating a storage
cell object representing the storage cell wherein the physical store objects
corresponding to the specified physical disk drives are included in the
created storage cell," as recited in claim 9?

Appeal 2009-005093
Application 10/043,924

11
Analysis
The Examiner finds that column 15, lines 20-45 of Lagueux teaches
"specifying at least some of the plurality of physical disk drives for inclusion
in a storage cell" and the storage device in columns 8-9 and Figure 24
corresponds to "creating a storage cell object representing the storage cell
wherein the physical store objects corresponding to the specified physical
disk drives are included in the created storage cell." FOA 4.
Appellants argue that the rejection appears to assert that the LUN
meets the "specifying" limitation and that nothing in column 15, lines 20-45
teaches the "specifying" limitation. Br. 18. Appellants argue that nothing in
columns 8-9 and Figure 24 teaches the "creating" limitation. Br. 18-19.
The Examiner finds that specifying certain disks for a mirror function
corresponds to "specifying at least some of the plurality of physical disk
drives for inclusion in a storage cell." Ans. 9. The Examiner finds that a
virtual circuit is created when conditions are met and the ISAN server is the
storage cell, which meets the limitation of "creating a storage cell object
representing the storage cell wherein the physical store objects
corresponding to the specified physical disk drives are included in the
created storage cell." Ans. 9.
Lagueux describes that "[t]he storage objects are accessed from the
mirror function 1013, and consist of a set of physical storage interfaces."
Col. 15, ll. 25-27. A mirror module may consist of four drives (primary,
secondary, tertiary, and standby) as shown in Figure 9, discussed at
column 14, lines 24-43, which is shown as interfaces to four disks, (01)-(04),
Appeal 2009-005093
Application 10/043,924

12
in Figure 12, although only disks (01), (02), and (04) are used in the
example. Col. 15, ll. 35-44. We see no reason why these four physical disks
in Figures 9 and 12 cannot be considered to form a mirror storage cell,
where the disks necessarily have to be specified to be part of the storage cell.
Lagueux also expressly describes that users may specify the storage
elements that will be part of an array, col. 25, ll. 34-46, where an array is
considered a "storage cell object" as broadly claimed.

Conclusion
Lagueux reasonably teaches "specifying at least some of the plurality
of physical disk drives for inclusion in a storage cell" and "creating a storage
cell object representing the storage cell wherein the physical store objects
corresponding to the specified physical disk drives are included in the
created storage cell." Therefore, the rejection of claim 9 is affirmed.
Dependent claims 10-12 are not separately argued and, accordingly, the
rejection of claims 10-12 is also affirmed.

Claims 13-16
Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in relying on Figures 4 and 6
of Lagueux for claim 13. Br. 19. The Examiner actually relies on
columns 16-18, but without any explanation. FOA 5. The Examiner refers
to disk array 132 and column 8, line 23 in the Answer. Ans. 10.
It is not understood how the Examiner considers the drive array to
teach "verifying that at least four physical store objects were specified
before creating the storage cell object." Claim 13 is a method claim and
Appeal 2009-005093
Application 10/043,924

13
requires a method step of "verifying." The mere presence of multiple store
objects does not teach this step. Thus, although Figures 9 and 12 show
multiple storage disks as discussed with claim 9, there is no teaching of
"verifying" and it cannot be said that such a step is inherent. Accordingly,
the rejection of claim 13 is reversed.
Similarly, claims 14-16 depend on dependent claim 10 and each recite
a step of "verifying" something. The Examiner's final rejection and
discussion in the Answer do not point out where these method steps are
taught in Lagueux. Thus, the rejection of claims 14-16 is reversed.

Claims 17 and 18
Issue
Does Lagueux describe "creating a logical disk object . . . , wherein
the logical disk is an abstract representation of physical storage capacity
provided by plurality of physical stores," "adding a storage protocol to the
logical disk object using a derived disk object in response to a user protocol
selection," "a presented disk object," and "creating a virtual disk object
comprising the logical disk object, the derived disk object and the presented
disk object" as recited in claim 17?

Analysis
The limitations of "creating a logical disk object" and "creating a
virtual disk object" parallel the limitations of claim 1, but the Examiner
relies on slightly different reasoning. As to "creating a logical disk object,"
the Examiner relies on creating LUNs. FOA 5. The Examiner refers to
Appeal 2009-005093
Application 10/043,924

14
columns 2 and 3 for the "derived disk object," and refers to columns 21 and
22 for the "presented disk object." FOA 5. As to "creating a virtual disk
object," the Examiner refers to Table 1, the Export Table, and Table 2,
referring to columns 17 and 18. FOA 5-6.
Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in relying on LUNs as both
elements. Br. 22. It is argued that columns 2 and 3 provide no support for
the "derived disk object." Br. 23. Appellants argue that Table 1 merely
illustrates addressing information that can be used to request access to a
virtual circuit and Table 2 illustrates mapping virtual devices to supporting
device drivers, and the rejection provides no support for the assertion that
this portion of Lagueux meets the claim limitations. Br. 23.
In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner finds that hardware driver
modules (HDMs) group devices together using a protocol, such as the
SCSI-3 protocol, meets the limitation of "adding a storage protocol to the
logical disk object using a derived disk object in response to a user protocol
selection." Ans. 11.
For the reasons discussed in connection with claim 1, we find that
Lagueux does not teach "creating a logical disk object" and "creating a
virtual disk object." The LUNs may be a "logical" disk object or a "virtual"
disk object representing physical storage, because the terms "logical" and
"virtual" can be broadly interpreted outside of the context of the claim.
However, we find no teaching in Lagueux of the claimed invention of
creating a virtual disk object from a logical disk object where the logical
disk object represents the physical storage, i.e., "virtual" and "logical" are
Appeal 2009-005093
Application 10/043,924

15
given specific meanings in the claim. The Export Table in Table 1 maps
addressing information received with a storage transaction to a virtual
circuit, where the addressing information used is the initiator ID, the target
LUN, and the target address. Col. 16, ll. 55-60. A virtual circuit is a
configured data path that includes a set of driver modules. Col. 2, ll. 15-17.
This is a logical representation of the physical storage. The LUN is not
created from a logical disk object.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's reference to columns 2
and 3 provides no explanation of how these columns meet the limitation of
"adding a storage protocol to the logical disk object using a derived disk
object in response to a user protocol selection." The further explanation in
the answer that there are protocols does not explain specifically how storage
protocols are added to a logical disk object, a LUN or a virtual circuit, in
response to a user protocol selection.
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellants have shown error in the
Examiner's finding of anticipation.

Conclusion
Lagueux does not describe "creating a logical disk object . . . ,
wherein the logical disk is an abstract representation of physical storage
capacity provided by plurality of physical stores," "adding a storage protocol
to the logical disk object using a derived disk object in response to a user
protocol selection," "a presented disk object," and "creating a virtual disk
object comprising the logical disk object, the derived disk object and the
Appeal 2009-005093
Application 10/043,924

16
presented disk object" as recited in claim 17. The rejection of claim 17 and
its dependent claim 18 is reversed.

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-8 and 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(b).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

erc

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528