Obviousness

Analysis of Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Under United States patent law, a patent claim is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (a "POSITA"). An obviousness analysis often involves combining the teachings of multiple prior art references, but there must be a reasoned basis for a POSITA to have made such a combination.

The core of Independent Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 10,776,023 ('023 patent) is a data storage device whose internal controller can receive a "storage device policy" and use it to manage how data is written, read, and deleted, including storing metadata remotely.

Based on the cited prior art, the claims of the '023 patent appear to be vulnerable to an obviousness challenge by combining teachings from multiple references.

Primary Combination: U.S. 2012/0159085 A1 (LSI) in view of U.S. 9,489,204 B2 (NetApp)

A strong argument for obviousness can be made by combining the teachings of the LSI '085 application with the NetApp '204 patent. LSI discloses the core concept of a device-level controller that adapts its behavior, while NetApp teaches the high-level policy management features missing from LSI.

1. Base Reference: U.S. 2012/0159085 A1 (LSI)

LSI teaches a storage device, such as an SSD, with a controller that can modify its internal operating parameters based on commands from a host system. This is directly analogous to the '023 patent's concept of a device controller receiving and acting upon a "storage device policy."

• Receiving a policy (Claim 1b): LSI discloses a host sending commands to the storage device to "adapt its internal operating parameters." A POSITA would understand this set of parameters and commands to constitute a "storage device policy."
• Storing content according to the policy (Claim 1c): LSI describes that upon receiving these parameters, the device modifies its behavior, such as adjusting error correction or wear-leveling algorithms. This directly teaches storing content in accordance with the received policy.
• Recording and retrieving using storage information (Claim 1d, 1e): As a functioning storage device, the LSI device inherently performs the fundamental operations of recording information about where data is physically stored (e.g., in a Flash Translation Layer or LBA-to-PBA map) and using that information to retrieve the data upon request. This corresponds to the "storage information" and "content identifier" of the claim.

LSI, however, does not explicitly teach refusing a delete request based on a policy or storing the storage information at a remote location.

2. Secondary Reference: U.S. 9,489,204 B2 (NetApp)

The NetApp patent teaches a system for enforcing storage policies across a network. Its teachings fill the gaps left by LSI.

• Refusing a delete request (Claim 1f): NetApp explicitly describes enforcing "storage policies" which can include "data retention" rules. A data retention policy, by definition, prevents the deletion of data until a certain condition is met or time has passed. A POSITA would understand that implementing a retention policy necessitates the system "refusing a delete request" for data that is still within its retention period.
• Storing information at a remote location (Claim 1g): NetApp's system is architected around a central management server that defines and distributes policies to storage systems. This central server is a "remote location" relative to the individual storage systems. It is common practice in such architectures for metadata, policies, and system status (i.e., "storage information") to be managed, backed up, or logged at this central location.

3. Motivation to Combine

A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of LSI and NetApp for several reasons:

• Enhancing Functionality: A POSITA, starting with the performance-tunable storage device of LSI, would recognize the market demand for more advanced, enterprise-level data management features. The policy-based retention and data protection taught by NetApp were standard features in enterprise storage systems. Integrating these capabilities directly into the device controller, as taught by LSI, would create a more powerful and versatile "intelligent" drive.
• Predictable Result: Combining a host-configurable controller (LSI) with policy-based retention (NetApp) would predictably result in a storage device that can enforce deletion rules sent by the host. There is no technical incompatibility that would prevent a controller from evaluating a "do not delete" flag (derived from a retention policy) before executing a delete or overwrite command.
• Centralized Management: As individual storage devices become more intelligent and configurable (per LSI), the need for centralized management increases. A POSITA would naturally look to existing network storage management paradigms, such as the central policy engine described by NetApp. It would be a logical step to have the LSI-type device not only receive its policy from a remote source but also report its storage information back to that remote source (e.g., a central key manager or metadata server) for reasons of security, durability, and system-wide management.

By combining LSI's device-level policy execution with NetApp's higher-level data retention and networked management policies, a POSITA would have arrived at the invention claimed in claim 1 of the '023 patent.

---

Alternative Combination: U.S. 2012/0159085 A1 (LSI) in view of U.S. 7,539,823 B2 (Microsoft)

This combination provides a particularly strong argument for the "refusing a delete request" element.

• Base Reference: LSI ('085), as described above.
• Secondary Reference: Microsoft ('823) teaches a system that uses a policy to intercept write/delete operations and redirect them, thereby protecting the original data. This is a direct implementation of "refusing a delete request" based on a policy.
• Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to integrate the data protection mechanism of Microsoft into the configurable device of LSI to create a device with a built-in, hardware-level Write-Once-Read-Many (WORM) or snapshot capability. This would be a valuable feature for compliance, archiving, and data security. The host could send a policy command to the LSI device to make a specific logical block range or object read-only, and the controller would then enforce this policy by rejecting any subsequent write or delete commands to that area, as taught by Microsoft.

This combination strongly teaches elements (a) through (f) of claim 1. To fully meet claim 1, this combination would need to be supplemented by the general knowledge of a POSITA or another reference (like NetApp '204) showing that in a managed storage environment, it is conventional to store critical metadata or keys at a remote location for security and management.