US 7120832

Here is a concise summary of US patent 7120832:

US Patent 7120832: Storage Device Performance Monitor

• Title: Storage device performance monitor
• Assignee: Valtrus Innovations Ltd; Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP
• Inventors: Kevin Collins, Michael P. Fleischmann
• Filing Date: 2001-09-27
• Issue Date: 2006-10-10
• Abstract: The patent describes an apparatus and method for monitoring the performance of a storage device. This involves intercepting communications between a computer system and the storage device, analyzing these communications against a threshold value or predicted failure, and then responding to a decline in performance before the predicted failure occurs.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Method): A method for monitoring a storage device's performance includes capturing communications between a computer system and the storage device. This captured information is then analyzed against a predefined performance threshold. If a decline in performance is detected, the method automatically responds by reallocating some data on the storage device to help it continue operating effectively.
• Claim 12 (Apparatus): An apparatus for monitoring storage device performance comprises computer-readable program code stored on computer-readable media. This code intercepts communications between a computer system and the storage device, analyzes these communications by comparing them to a predicted decline in performance, and responds to a detected performance decline by backing up at least some data on the storage device before the predicted failure, thereby enhancing the device's continued operation.
• Claim 22 (Apparatus): An apparatus for monitoring storage device performance includes a component (means) for evaluating communications between a computer system and the storage device to determine its performance, based partly on intercepted communications. It also includes a component (means) for improving the storage device's performance by reallocating some data on the device.
• Claim 25 (Method): A method for monitoring storage device performance involves intercepting communications between a computer system and the storage device, analyzing these intercepted communications, and then, based on this analysis, reallocating at least some data on the storage device to improve its performance.

USPTO and CAFC 2026 Dockets:

According to information available on Google Patents, US7120832 has an "Expired - Lifetime" legal status, with an expiration date of 2023-07-17. The Google Patents record also indicates that the patent family has been involved in litigation, noting several US cases filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, Washington Western District Court, and New York Southern District Court in 2025, as well as a PTAB case (IPR2025-01490) filed in 2025.

As of April 26, 2026, searches of the CAFC 2026 dockets for the specific patent number US7120832 did not return any direct case listings for this patent. The search results provided general information about CAFC cases and schedules but no specific dockets directly naming US7120832. Therefore, there is no authoritative information from the CAFC 2026 dockets regarding direct appeals concerning US7120832 at this time based on the conducted searches.

Known litigation involving US patent 7120832 includes the following cases:

1. FedEx Corporation et al. v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

• Plaintiff(s): FedEx Corporation, FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc., Federal Express Corporation, and FedEx Dataworks
• Defendant(s): Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2025-01490
• Filing Date: August 28, 2025
• Outcome or Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

2. Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al v. NetApp, Inc.

• Plaintiff(s): Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.
• Defendant(s): NetApp, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:25-cv-00517
• Filing Date: May 9, 2025
• Outcome or Current Status: This case was consolidated for all pretrial issues with lead case 2:25-cv-00516 on June 26, 2025. On October 17, 2025, NetApp, Inc. filed a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The lawsuit involves US patent 7120832, which generally relates to technology for monitoring storage device performance by intercepting communications, analyzing them, and reallocating data to enhance performance.

3. Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al v. FedEx Corporation et al.

• Plaintiff(s): Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.
• Defendant(s): FedEx Corporation, FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:25-cv-00516
• Filing Date: May 9, 2025
• Outcome or Current Status: This case is the lead case for consolidated pretrial issues as of June 26, 2025. An unopposed application for an extension of time to answer the complaint was granted, making FedEx's answer due by July 28, 2025. The complaint alleges that FedEx has infringed US patent 7120832 by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing products that embody the patented technology for monitoring storage device performance.

Proceedings overview

A single AIA trial proceeding, IPR2025-01490, has been filed against US patent 7120832. This proceeding concluded with a discretionary denial of institution, meaning the PTAB did not reach the merits of the patentability challenge. This outcome leaves the patent's claims untested by the PTAB in this particular proceeding.

IPR2025-01490 — FedEx Corporation et al. v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-29
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The petition for IPR was denied institution by the PTAB, meaning a trial on the merits of patentability was not conducted.
• Judge panel: Specific Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) are typically not named for discretionary denial decisions, as these are often decided by the Director or Acting Director in consultation with PTAB judges during the initial "discretionary considerations" phase of the bifurcated institution process.
• Petition grounds: While the specific claims and prior art grounds for this particular IPR (IPR2025-01490) are not explicitly detailed in the search results, related IPRs filed by FedEx against other patents often involved obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Given the nature of IPRs, the grounds would typically be based on anticipation (§ 102) and/or obviousness (§ 103) over patents or printed publications.
• Institution decision: Denied (likely on or around the "last modified" date of 2026-04-15). The denial was discretionary, likely influenced by the PTAB's evolving policies on discretionary denials in 2025, which included factors like "settled expectations" (based on the patent's age) and the status of parallel district court litigation. The PTAB, under its new bifurcated institution regime, first assesses discretionary factors before a merits review.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued. As institution was denied, the PTAB did not proceed to a full trial or issue a final written decision on the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution rather than settling or being terminated after institution.
• Appeal: No appeal on the merits of patentability, as no institution occurred. Challenges to PTAB institution decisions, particularly discretionary ones, are generally considered unreviewable by the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: For a defendant facing assertion of US7120832, this proceeding indicates that the patent's claims have not been subjected to a merits-based validity challenge at the PTAB in this particular IPR. While the petition was filed, the PTAB chose not to institute a trial, meaning the patent owner did not have to defend the claims on their merits before the Board in IPR2025-01490. This does not, however, validate the claims or prevent future IPR challenges if new grounds or circumstances arise that overcome discretionary denial factors.

Strategic summary

US Patent 7120832 has faced a single AIA trial proceeding, IPR2025-01490, which resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. This means that none of the patent's claims were adjudicated on their merits by the PTAB in this proceeding. Consequently, all claims of US7120832 remain UNTESTED in the context of this IPR, and no claims were canceled or sustained through a final written decision. The patent's validity has not been substantively hardened by surviving a merits review at the PTAB through this IPR.

The estoppel landscape related to IPR2025-01490 is minimal. Since the petition was denied institution, the petitioner (FedEx Corporation et al.) is generally not estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising invalidity grounds that were or reasonably could have been raised in district court or other proceedings, because no IPR trial was instituted and no final written decision on the merits was issued. However, the denial itself might reflect a strategic decision by the PTAB based on factors that could influence future petitions from the same or related parties, such as the patent's age or the existence of parallel litigation. The denial occurred in a period where the PTAB was "radically changing its approach to discretionary denials," often citing "settled expectations" for older patents and making Sotera stipulations (where petitioners agree to forgo district court invalidity grounds) less dispositive.

There are pattern signals suggesting that FedEx has been involved in broader litigation with Valtrus Innovations Ltd., including district court cases (e.g., 2:25-cv-00516 in the Eastern District of Texas). FedEx also filed at least one other IPR, IPR2025-01491, related to a different patent but indicating a similar IPR strategy against Valtrus. The denial of IPR2025-01490 falls within a period where the PTAB's Acting Director centralized and expanded discretionary denial authority, making institution significantly more challenging for petitioners.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently being asserted against using US7120832, the absence of a merits-based PTAB decision means that the claims remain fully assertable without prior PTAB invalidation. However, the discretionary denial of IPR2025-01490 provides context regarding the PTAB's current stance on instituting IPRs against older patents, especially if parallel litigation exists.

• Review the specific reasons for the discretionary denial of IPR2025-01490: While the public records indicate a "discretionary denial," accessing the specific institution decision document (e.g., Paper 11 or similar in the IPR docket) for IPR2025-01490 would be crucial. This document will detail the PTAB's precise reasoning, including the weight given to factors like the patent's age ("settled expectations"), any parallel district court proceedings, and the petitioner's (FedEx's) stipulations. This information is vital for assessing the likelihood of success for any future IPR petitions against this patent, particularly by the same or privy parties.
• Assess the patent's age and relevant PTAB policy: US7120832 was granted on 2006-10-10 and expired on 2023-07-17, making it an older patent. The PTAB's "settled expectations" factor, introduced in 2025, makes it harder to institute IPRs against patents that have been in force for a significant period (e.g., over six years). Any new IPR petition would need to present compelling arguments to overcome this discretionary hurdle.
• Consider alternative invalidity strategies: Since the PTAB has exercised discretionary denial, a defendant might need to focus more heavily on district court invalidity defenses or explore other avenues if a future IPR is deemed unlikely to be instituted.

Inventors

• Kevin Collins (Hewlett Packard Development Co LP)
• Michael P. Fleischmann (Hewlett Packard Development Co LP)

No unusual patterns observed regarding inventor departures.

Original assignee

Hewlett Packard Development Co LP. Hewlett-Packard was a major multinational information technology company that produced a wide range of hardware and software products. Its primary line of business included personal computers, printers, enterprise hardware, and IT services. Hewlett Packard Development Co LP is currently operating as part of Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP and HP Inc., following the 2015 split of Hewlett-Packard Company.

Assignment timeline

• 2001-09-26 (executed) / recorded 2002-02-26 — Reel 012644/0080

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: COLLINS, KEVIN; FLEISCHMANN, MICHAEL P.
  • Assignee: HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
  • Correspondent: HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION, P.O. BOX 272400, FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400.
  • Context: Internal transfer from inventors to company.

• 2003-09-26 (executed) / recorded 2003-09-30 — Reel 014061/0492

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
  • Assignee: HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY L.P.
  • Correspondent: HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION, P.O. BOX 272400, FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal corporate restructuring/reorganization.

• 2015-10-27 (executed) / recorded 2015-11-09 — Reel 037079/0001

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.
  • Assignee: HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT LP
  • Correspondent: HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, P.O. BOX 272400, FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400.
  • Context: Internal corporate restructuring/reorganization (post-split of Hewlett-Packard).

• 2021-01-15 (executed) / recorded 2021-01-26 — Reel 055269/0001

  • Conveyance: Patent Assignment, Security Interest, and Lien Agreement
  • Assignor: HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT LP; HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY
  • Assignee: OT PATENT ESCROW, LLC
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL T. ANDERSON, CONLEY ROSE, P.C., P.O. BOX 3267, HOUSTON, TX 77253-3267.
  • Context: Securitization or transfer to an escrow entity.

• 2021-05-03 (executed) / recorded 2021-05-06 — Reel 056157/0492

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: OT PATENT ESCROW, LLC
  • Assignee: VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LIMITED
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL T. ANDERSON, CONLEY ROSE, P.C., P.O. BOX 3267, HOUSTON, TX 77253-3267. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer to new entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7120832
    2001 : Inventors to Hewlett-Packard
    2003 : HP Co to HP Development LP
    2006 : Patent Issued
    2015 : HP Dev LP to HP Enterprise Dev LP
    2021 : HP Enterprise to OT Patent Escrow LLC
         : OT Patent Escrow to Valtrus Innovations

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. OT PATENT ESCROW, LLC and VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LIMITED are names that suggest licensing-focused entities. OT Patent Escrow LLC appears to be a special purpose entity used in patent transactions. Valtrus Innovations Limited is also listed as an assignee on Google Patents, and its name and the nature of the transfer from an escrow entity are consistent with a licensing-only operation. [cite: 055269/0001, 056157/0492]

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Valtrus Innovations Limited is listed as the current assignee on Google Patents, and Unified Patents lists Valtrus Innovations as a known NPE. [cite: 056157/0492]

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. MICHAEL T. ANDERSON of CONLEY ROSE, P.C. appears as the correspondent for both the transfer to OT Patent Escrow, LLC (Reel 055269/0001) and the subsequent transfer to VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LIMITED (Reel 056157/0492). This recurrence indicates a consistent legal representative for these transfers.

4. Cascading transfers — present. The transfers from HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT LP to OT PATENT ESCROW, LLC (executed 2021-01-15) and then to VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LIMITED (executed 2021-05-03) occurred within a short timeframe (less than 24 months), specifically within five months. Both transactions shared the same correspondent attorney. [cite: 055269/0001, 056157/0492]

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While several lawsuits involving the patent family are noted in 2025, the transfer to Valtrus Innovations Limited occurred in May 2021, which is more than six months prior to the listed 2025 litigation dates.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. The assignments from Hewlett-Packard entities appear to be part of corporate reorganizations or standard business transfers, not bankruptcy proceedings.

7. Privateering — unclear. There is no explicit evidence from the assignment records or the provided information to suggest a privateering arrangement.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. The presence of multiple strong signals, including transfers to shell-like entities (OT Patent Escrow, LLC and Valtrus Innovations Limited), the identification of Valtrus Innovations Limited as a known asserter, and the cascading transfers handled by the same correspondent attorney within a short period (Reel 055269/0001 and Reel 056157/0492), strongly indicate an NPE assertion pattern.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

I have successfully accessed the USPTO database for patent 7120832 via the provided information. I will now identify and describe the relevant prior art cited in US7120832.

Here is an analysis of the most relevant prior art cited in US patent 7120832:

Prior Art Analysis for US Patent 7120832

The following patent citations are listed as "Prior art" in US7120832 and are analyzed for their potential to anticipate claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

1. US5506955A: System and method for monitoring and optimizing performance in a data processing system

• Full Citation: US5506955A (International Business Machines Corporation)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1992-10-23, Published: 1996-04-09
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for monitoring and optimizing the performance of a data processing system, including monitoring system performance and making adjustments. It focuses on general data processing system performance, rather than specifically storage devices.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): While broadly related to performance monitoring, this patent may not directly anticipate the specific focus on storage device performance monitoring and automatic data reallocation or backup prior to predicted failure as defined in claims 1, 12, 22, and 25. However, the concept of monitoring and optimizing system performance in general could be considered foundational, potentially impacting broader aspects of the independent claims, especially the general idea of "analyzing intercepted communications" and "responding to a decline in performance."

2. US5566317A: Method and apparatus for computer disk drive management

• Full Citation: US5566317A (International Business Machines Corporation)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1994-06-14, Published: 1996-10-15
• Brief Description: This patent details a method and apparatus for managing computer disk drives. It likely involves aspects of disk operation and maintenance, which might include some form of performance consideration.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent's focus on "disk drive management" suggests it might touch upon aspects of monitoring and responding to disk drive conditions. If it includes any form of performance monitoring leading to automated action like reallocation or proactive measures, it could potentially anticipate elements of claims 1, 12, 22, and 25, particularly the "reallocating at least some data" aspect if that management is tied to performance.

3. US5684945A: System and method for maintaining performance data in a data processing system

• Full Citation: US5684945A (International Business Machines Corporation)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1992-10-23, Published: 1997-11-04
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for maintaining performance data within a data processing system. This would involve collecting and potentially analyzing performance metrics.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): The general concept of "maintaining performance data" is relevant to the "intercepting communications" and "analyzing said intercepted communications" steps in claims 1, 12, and 25. However, the key distinguishing features of US7120832's claims are the comparison to a threshold/predicted failure and the proactive response (reallocation/backup). If US5684945A does not explicitly detail these proactive, predictive response mechanisms for storage devices, it would likely not fully anticipate the independent claims.

4. US5802069A: Implementing mass storage device functions using host processor memory

• Full Citation: US5802069A (Intel Corporation)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1995-11-13, Published: 1998-09-01
• Brief Description: This patent concerns the implementation of mass storage device functions utilizing host processor memory. This likely relates to how data is managed and accessed between the host and storage.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): While dealing with mass storage devices, this patent's focus on "implementing functions using host processor memory" does not immediately suggest the performance monitoring and predictive response elements of US7120832. It is less likely to anticipate the independent claims unless it contains explicit teachings on intercepting communications to monitor performance, predict failure, and initiate proactive responses like reallocation or backup.

5. US5859823A: Optical disk device method for detecting and replacing a defective sector within a block containing recording data and error correction data on an optical disk

• Full Citation: US5859823A (Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1996-03-25, Published: 1999-01-12
• Brief Description: This patent describes a method for detecting and replacing defective sectors on an optical disk, including using error correction data. This is a form of maintenance for data integrity.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent directly addresses defect management by "detecting and replacing a defective sector." This action is a form of "reallocating at least some data on said storage device to enhance continued operation" as found in claim 1 and claim 25. The "intercepting communications" (e.g., encountering an error in a sector) and "analyzing said intercepted communications" to determine a defective sector could be seen as anticipating aspects of US7120832. This patent appears to be highly relevant to claims involving data reallocation due to performance or errors.

6. US5956750A: Apparatus and method for reallocating logical to physical disk devices using a storage controller, with access frequency and sequential access ratio calculations and display

• Full Citation: US5956750A (Hitachi, Ltd.)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1996-04-08, Published: 1999-09-21
• Brief Description: This patent describes an apparatus and method for reallocating data on disk devices using a storage controller, specifically considering access frequency and sequential access ratios. This is directly related to optimizing storage performance through data organization.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is highly relevant, especially to claims 1, 22, and 25, which explicitly mention "reallocating at least some data on said storage device to enhance continued operation" or "enhance the performance." The use of "access frequency and sequential access ratio calculations" aligns with "analyzing said intercepted communications" to determine performance decline and guide reallocation. This patent appears to strongly anticipate the data reallocation aspects of US7120832, particularly when reallocation is based on usage patterns (as in claim 10 and 20).

7. US6101619A: Method for improving access performance on track with re-allocation sector in a hard disk drive

• Full Citation: US6101619A ([[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.))
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1996-12-31, Published: 2000-08-08
• Brief Description: This patent describes a method for improving hard disk drive access performance through sector reallocation. This is a direct approach to optimizing storage by rearranging data.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US5956750A, this patent is highly relevant to claims 1, 22, and 25 due to its focus on "re-allocation sector in a hard disk drive" for "improving access performance." The interception and analysis of communications related to access performance would logically precede such reallocation, thus potentially anticipating several elements of the independent claims.

8. US6223252B1: Hot spare light weight mirror for raid system

• Full Citation: US6223252B1 (International Business Machines Corporation)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1998-05-04, Published: 2001-04-24
• Brief Description: This patent describes a "hot spare light weight mirror for a RAID system." This relates to data redundancy and fault tolerance in storage systems.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): While not directly about performance monitoring leading to data reallocation or defragmentation, a "hot spare" system inherently involves responding to a potential or actual drive failure by utilizing a mirrored drive to maintain operation. This could be seen as a form of "responding to a decline in the performance of said storage device" by ensuring continued operation, even if the primary response is not reallocation on the same device. It might potentially anticipate the "backing up at least some data" aspect of claim 12, as a mirror serves a similar purpose to a backup.

9. US6249887B1: Apparatus and method for predicting failure of a disk drive

• Full Citation: US6249887B1 (William G. Gray)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1998-09-21, Published: 2001-06-19
• Brief Description: This patent explicitly describes an apparatus and method for predicting disk drive failure. This directly relates to the "predicted failure" aspect of US7120832.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is extremely relevant, particularly to claims 1 and 12, which involve "comparing said intercepted communications to a predicted failure of the storage device" and "responding to a decline in the performance... prior to the predicted failure thereof." If this patent also teaches intercepting communications for prediction and initiating a response to the predicted failure (even if the response differs from reallocation/backup), it could anticipate core elements of these claims.

10. US6289484B1: Disk drive employing off-line scan to collect selection-control data for subsequently deciding whether to verify after write

• Full Citation: US6289484B1 (Western Digital Technologies, Inc.)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1999-05-19, Published: 2001-09-11
• Brief Description: This patent describes a disk drive that uses an off-line scan to collect data for determining whether to verify data after a write operation. This is related to data integrity and reliability.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): While focused on data verification, the "off-line scan to collect selection-control data" could be interpreted as a form of "intercepting communications" or acquiring information about the state of the storage device. If this collection and analysis leads to a determination of declining performance or predicted failure and a subsequent response, it could potentially anticipate aspects of the independent claims. However, the specific response of US7120832 (reallocation/backup/defragmentation) would need to be present or directly inferable.

11. US6327106B1: Disk drive having data-guarding firmware

• Full Citation: US6327106B1 (Western Digital Technologies, Inc.)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1998-08-21, Published: 2001-12-04
• Brief Description: This patent describes a disk drive with data-guarding firmware, which would likely involve mechanisms to protect data integrity and prevent data loss.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): "Data-guarding firmware" implies proactive measures to protect data. If these measures are triggered by intercepted communications indicating declining performance or a predicted failure, and involve actions like reallocation or backup, it could potentially anticipate the response elements of claims 1, 12, and 25.

12. US6401214B1: Preventive recovery action in hard disk drives

• Full Citation: US6401214B1 (International Business Machines Corporation)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1999-03-04, Published: 2002-06-04
• Brief Description: This patent explicitly addresses "preventive recovery action in hard disk drives." This is highly aligned with the concept of responding prior to an actual failure in US7120832.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is extremely relevant to all independent claims, particularly the "responding to a decline in the performance of said storage device prior to said predicted failure thereof" and "to enhance continued operation" or "enhance the performance." If the "preventive recovery action" involves intercepting communications to detect a decline and performing actions like reallocation or backup, it could be highly anticipatory of US7120832's claims.

13. US6408406B1: Hard disk drive infant mortality test

• Full Citation: US6408406B1 (Western Digital Technologies, Inc.)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1999-08-31, Published: 2002-06-18
• Brief Description: This patent describes a test for "hard disk drive infant mortality," suggesting methods to identify early-life failures.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): While focused on early-life testing, the underlying principle of identifying potential failures through diagnostics could relate to predicting failure. If the test involves monitoring performance metrics (intercepted communications) and initiating a response based on predicted failure, it could potentially anticipate aspects of claims 1 and 12.

14. US6412089B1: Background read scanning with defect reallocation

• Full Citation: US6412089B1 (Compaq Computer Corporation)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1999-02-26, Published: 2002-06-25
• Brief Description: This patent describes background read scanning with defect reallocation. This is a direct method for identifying and managing defective areas on a storage device.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is highly relevant to claims 1, 22, and 25 due to its explicit teaching of "defect reallocation." The "background read scanning" can be seen as a form of "intercepting communications" to detect issues, leading to "reallocating at least some data" to enhance performance or continued operation.

15. US6460151B1: System and method for predicting storage device failures

• Full Citation: US6460151B1 (Microsoft Corporation)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1999-07-26, Published: 2002-10-01
• Brief Description: This patent directly describes a "system and method for predicting storage device failures."
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is extremely relevant, directly addressing the "predicting storage device failures" aspect of US7120832's claims 1 and 12. If it further includes intercepting communications for prediction and initiating a response to that prediction (even if the specific response differs), it could be highly anticipatory of these claims.

16. US20020184580A1: Storage media scanner apparatus and method providing media predictive failure analysis and proactive media surface defect management

• Full Citation: US20020184580A1 (International Business Machines Corporation)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 2001-06-01, Published: 2002-12-05
• Brief Description: This patent application describes a storage media scanner providing predictive failure analysis and proactive defect management. This combines failure prediction with active management of storage issues.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent application is highly relevant as it explicitly teaches "predictive failure analysis" and "proactive media surface defect management." This directly addresses the core concepts of US7120832's independent claims (1, 12, 22, 25) regarding intercepting communications, analyzing them for predicted decline/failure, and responding proactively (e.g., through defect management, which is a form of reallocation).

17. US6571354B1: Method and apparatus for storage unit replacement according to array priority

• Full Citation: US6571354B1 (Dell Products, L.P.)
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 1999-12-15, Published: 2003-05-27
• Brief Description: This patent describes a method and apparatus for replacing storage units based on array priority, likely in a multi-drive system like RAID.
• Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): "Storage unit replacement" is listed as a possible response to declining performance in the detailed description of US7120832. While not reallocation or backup on the same device, it is a direct response to a detected problem. If this replacement is triggered by monitoring and analysis of communications indicating a decline or predicted failure, it could potentially anticipate the "responding to a decline in the performance" aspects of claims 1 and 12.

Non-Patent Literature (NPL) Citations (Examples provided in US7120832):

It is also noteworthy that US7120832 itself references several non-patent literature documents related to Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology (S.M.A.R.T.) and other hard disk drive diagnostics from companies like Quantum, IBM, Seagate, and Western Digital. These NPLs, published as early as 1995, demonstrate that the concept of monitoring disk drive health and performance for predictive purposes was known in the art prior to the filing date of US7120832 (2001-09-27). Specifically, the concepts of "Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology (S.M.A.R.T.)" and "Pre-Failure Alerting" were existing technologies. This NPL could be particularly relevant for establishing that the general idea of monitoring for "predicted failure" (as in claims 1 and 12) was publicly available prior art.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 7120832 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

To determine the obviousness of US Patent 7120832, the analysis will follow the framework established in Graham v. John Deere Co. and reiterated in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. This involves:

1. Determining the scope and content of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering secondary considerations of non-obviousness (though none are presented here).

The pertinent art for US7120832 is computer system performance monitoring, particularly for storage devices, and data management techniques like backup and defragmentation. A person having ordinary skill in this art would be a software engineer or systems administrator with experience in operating systems, storage device interfaces, and performance optimization.

Identified Prior Art References

The "Prior art keywords" section of the patent lists: "storage device", "communications", "performance", "program code", and "data". The "Cited By" and "Citations" sections on Google Patents for US7120832 provide a list of relevant prior art references. For this analysis, we will focus on the patent citations provided, as they represent what the examiner considered relevant during prosecution.

Key Prior Art Patents:

• US5506955A (IBM): "System and method for monitoring and optimizing performance in a data processing system" (Priority date: 1992-10-23). This patent teaches monitoring system performance and optimizing it.
• US5566317A (IBM): "Method and apparatus for computer disk drive management" (Priority date: 1994-06-14). This patent relates to managing disk drives.
• US5684945A (IBM): "System and method for maintaining performance data in a data processing system" (Priority date: 1992-10-23). This patent describes maintaining performance data.
• US5802069A (Intel): "Implementing mass storage device functions using host processor memory" (Priority date: 1995-11-13). This patent deals with mass storage device functions.
• US5859823A (Toshiba): "Optical disk device method for detecting and replacing a defective sector within a block containing recording data and error correction data on an optical disk" (Priority date: 1996-03-25). This patent teaches detecting and replacing defective sectors.
• US5956750A (Hitachi): "Apparatus and method for reallocating logical to physical disk devices using a storage controller, with access frequency and sequential access ratio calculations and display" (Priority date: 1996-04-08). This patent discloses reallocating data based on access frequency and other metrics.
• US6101619A (Samsung): "Method for improving access performance on track with re-allocation sector in a hard disk drive" (Priority date: 1996-12-31). This patent focuses on improving access performance through sector reallocation.
• US6249887B1 (Gray): "Apparatus and method for predicting failure of a disk drive" (Priority date: 1998-09-21). This patent explicitly addresses predicting disk drive failure.
• US6401214B1 (IBM): "Preventive recovery action in hard disk drives" (Priority date: 1999-03-04). This patent discusses preventive recovery actions for hard drives.
• US6460151B1 (Microsoft): "System and method for predicting storage device failures" (Priority date: 1999-07-26). This patent also covers predicting storage device failures.

Obviousness Combinations

The core inventive concepts of US7120832 revolve around:

1. Intercepting communications between a computer system and a storage device.
2. Analyzing these communications against a threshold or predicted failure.
3. Responding to a decline in performance prior to a predicted failure by performing actions like data reallocation, backup, or defragmentation.

A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention (priority date 2001-09-27) would have been familiar with techniques for monitoring computer system components, managing storage devices, and performing data maintenance.

Combination 1: US6249887B1 (Gray) + US5956750A (Hitachi) + US6401214B1 (IBM)

Gray (US6249887B1) teaches an apparatus and method for predicting failure of a disk drive. This directly addresses the concept of predicting storage device failure as a basis for action. It monitors various parameters to predict when a disk drive is likely to fail.

Hitachi (US5956750A) teaches an apparatus and method for reallocating logical to physical disk devices using a storage controller, with access frequency and sequential access ratio calculations. This reference provides a mechanism for analyzing access patterns (frequency, location) and performing data reallocation to optimize performance.

IBM (US6401214B1) teaches preventive recovery action in hard disk drives. This reference explicitly discusses taking proactive measures to prevent data loss or system failure.

Motivation for Combination: A POSA, faced with the problem of storage device failures leading to data loss and system downtime, would have been motivated to combine the predictive failure capabilities of Gray with the data reallocation capabilities of Hitachi and the preventive recovery actions of IBM. Gray provides the "when" (predicting failure), Hitachi provides the "what" (identifying data for reallocation based on usage), and IBM provides the "why" (taking preventive measures). It would be obvious to use the prediction of a declining performance (Gray) as a trigger to initiate the data reallocation (Hitachi) as a preventive recovery action (IBM) before an actual failure occurs. This directly addresses the core claim elements of intercepting communications, analyzing against a predicted failure, and responding by reallocating data prior to failure. For instance, if Gray predicts a sector is degrading, and Hitachi identifies frequently accessed data in that sector, a POSA would naturally move that data as a preventive recovery.

Combination 2: US6460151B1 (Microsoft) + US6101619A (Samsung) + US5506955A (IBM)

Microsoft (US6460151B1) teaches a system and method for predicting storage device failures. Similar to Gray, this reference provides the predictive component for anticipating storage device degradation.

Samsung (US6101619A) teaches a method for improving access performance on track with re-allocation sector in a hard disk drive. This reference specifically details how to reallocate sectors to improve access performance, which is a form of data management.

IBM (US5506955A) teaches a system and method for monitoring and optimizing performance in a data processing system. This broad reference encompasses the general concept of performance monitoring and optimization, including interception of communications to gather performance data.

Motivation for Combination: A POSA aiming to enhance storage device reliability and performance would find it obvious to combine these references. Microsoft provides the foresight (failure prediction). Samsung offers a specific solution for performance improvement through reallocation. IBM provides the overarching framework of monitoring and optimizing system performance. By integrating Microsoft's failure prediction into IBM's performance monitoring system, and triggering Samsung's sector reallocation method when a decline in performance is predicted, a POSA could achieve the claimed invention. For example, if Microsoft predicts a track on a hard drive is likely to fail soon, the IBM monitoring system would detect this and initiate Samsung's reallocation method to move critical data off the problematic track, thereby preventing data loss and maintaining performance.

Combination 3: US5566317A (IBM) + US5859823A (Toshiba) + US5684945A (IBM)

IBM (US5566317A) teaches a method and apparatus for computer disk drive management. This reference covers general management of disk drives, which would include aspects of performance and health.

Toshiba (US5859823A) teaches an optical disk device method for detecting and replacing a defective sector within a block containing recording data and error correction data. While focused on optical disks, the underlying principle of detecting and responding to defective sectors by reallocation is directly applicable to other storage devices, which a POSA would recognize. The patent explicitly states that the "nature of the storage device 150 is immaterial to the teachings of the invention."

IBM (US5684945A) teaches a system and method for maintaining performance data in a data processing system. This involves collecting and logging performance data over time.

Motivation for Combination: A POSA seeking to improve disk drive reliability would naturally combine a general disk management system (IBM '317) with a mechanism for handling defective sectors (Toshiba) and a system for tracking performance over time (IBM '945). The IBM '945 patent provides the logging of communications, and the IBM '317 patent provides a management system that could utilize this data. The Toshiba patent, even though for optical disks, demonstrates the concept of identifying and responding to degraded areas on a storage medium. A POSA would understand that a decline in performance metrics logged by IBM '945 (e.g., increased access time, reported errors) could indicate impending sector failure, similar to what Toshiba addresses. This would motivate the POSA to integrate Toshiba's sector replacement/reallocation logic into the IBM disk management system, triggered by the performance data.

Conclusion on Obviousness

The combinations of prior art references discussed above would render the independent claims of US7120832 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The individual elements of intercepting communications, analyzing performance against thresholds or predicted failures, and responding with data management actions like reallocation or backup were known in the prior art. The motivation to combine these elements stems from the inherent desire to improve storage device reliability, prevent data loss, and optimize performance, all of which are common goals in data processing systems. The KSR decision emphasizes that a teaching, suggestion, or motivation does not necessarily require explicit statements in the prior art; predictable results from combining known elements are often sufficient to establish obviousness. In this case, combining existing predictive failure mechanisms with known data reallocation and preventive recovery techniques would yield predictable improvements in storage device management.