Ex Parte Arroyo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

14840351 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/840,351 08/31/2015
139308 7590 09/26/2018
IBM Corporation
Intellectural Property Law Department Poughkeepsie
2455 South Road, MIS P386, Bldg. 008-2
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Jesse P. Arroyo
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
ROC920130185US2 9119
EXAMINER
MILLS, PAUL V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
poiplaw2@us.ibm.com
jpenningtonatty@cs.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JESSE P. ARROYO, BRIAN E. BAKKE,
ELLEN M. BAUMAN, ROBERT GALBRAITH, CHARLES
S. GRAHAM, and TIMOTHY J. SCHIMKE
Appeal2017-011857
Application 14/840,3 51
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 5-11. Final Act. 1. Appeal number 2017-011797
(App. No. 14/087,330) is related. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1, 5-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Goggin et al. (US 2011/0179414 Al, published July 21, 2011) and
Brownlow et al. (US 2012/0159245 Al, published June 21, 2012)
Appeal2017-011857
Application 14/840,3 51
("Brownlow '245"). See Final Act. 7-8 (rejecting claims 5-9 and 11 ),
Advisory Act. 2---6 (rejecting claim 1 ).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Goggin,
Brownlow, and Brownlow et al. (US 2012/0179844 Al, published July 12,
2012) ("Brownlow '844"). See Final Act. 8-9.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "implementing dynamic virtualization
of a Single Root Input/Output Virtualization (SRIOV) capable Serial
Attached Small-Computer System-Interface (SAS) adapter." Spec. ,r 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method for implementing dynamic virtualization
of a Single Root Input/Output Virtualization (SRIOV) capable
Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) adapter comprising:
providing the SRIOV SAS adapter in a computer system,
the SRIOV SAS adapter comprising a plurality of Host Bus
Adapter (HBA) resources, a plurality of virtual functions (VFs)
for sharing by multiple system partitions, and a physical
function (PF) for configuration and management of the VFs;
sharing the SRIOV SAS adapter by said multiple system
partitions with each said system partition including at least one
processor, an operating system (OS) and a VF driver;
providing a hypervisor coupled to the multiple system
partitions and the PF, said hypervisor storing a configuration
interface and including a PF driver associated with the PF;
enabling each HBA resource to be assigned to a VF;
enabling each VF to be assigned to multiple system
partitions;
enabling multiple VFs to be assigned to a single system
partition; when activating a system partition, said hypervisor
first assigning associated resources with a respective VF in the
SRIOV SAS adapter using the PF driver;
2
Appeal2017-011857
Application 14/840,3 51
providing a resource manager and a partition supervisor
for implementing dynamic virtualization of the SRIOV SAS
adapter, said resource manager and said partition supervisor
including control code tangibly embodied in a non-transitory
machine readable medium;
by said resource manager, running an assignment process
each time the SRIOV SAS adapter is reset, assigning HBA
resources to said VFs persistently remembering the
assignments, and communicating the assignments to said
partition supervisor, each of said plurality of said HBA
resources being assigned to one or more of said VFs, and only
respectively assigned VFs enabled to access an associated
assigned HBA resource;
receiving, by the SRIOV SAS adapter, assignment
configuration communicated from said resource manager via
the PF, disabling configuration and management Application
Programming Interfaces (APis) on the VFs, and enabling
configuration and management Application Programming
Interfaces (APis) only on the PF; and
sending Read and Write commands from said system
partitions via respectively assigned VFs without any
intermediary; and system partition read/write performance for
each VF being substantially equivalent to performance achieved
for a dedicated HBA.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
3
Appeal2017-011857
Application 14/840,3 51
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (see generally App. Br. and Reply Br.) contending that the
Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments as to the obviousness
rejections of claims 1, 5-9, and 11 over Goggin and Brownlow '245, and of
claim 10 over Goggin, Brownlow '245, and Brownlow '844.
We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
In particular, the Examiner finds Goggin teaches all limitations of
claim 1 except for "running an assignment process each time the SRIOV
SAS adapter is reset"; the Examiner finds Brownlow '245 teaches "running
an assignment process each time the SRIOV SAS adapter is reset." See
Advisory Act. 2---6; see also Ans. 3-15. The Examiner reasons "[i]t would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was filed to modify the SR-IOV implementation of Goggin in accordance
with the teachings of Brownlow ['245] to improve its error handling and
recovery capabilities." Advisory Act. 6; see also Ans. 15.
In particular, Appellants argue the following:
1.
Applicants respectfully submit that providing mapping
information resident on the VF as taught by Goggin does not
achieve nor suggest providing a physical function (PF) for
configuration and management of the VFs and providing the
4
Appeal2017-011857
Application 14/840,3 51
hypervisor storing a configuration interface and including a PF
driver associated with the PF, as recited in claim 1. The
Brownlow references add nothing to suggest providing a
physical function (PF) for configuration and management of the
VFs and providing the hypervisor storing a configuration
interface.
App. Br. 22; see also Reply Br. 3--4.
11.
Applicants respectfully submit that Goggin teaches
providing a SCSI target emulation module 322 within the
virtualization intermediary 310 that maps virtual SCSI logical
units (i.e virtual disks) to physical SCSI targets and physical
SCSI logical units located in storage 308 ... and the VF 316,
thereby is provided with and the mapping information resident
on the VF. Goggin and the Brownlow references do not suggest,
nor is equivalent to the recited steps of claim 1 of enabling
multiple VFs to be assigned to a single system partition; when
activating a system partition, said hypervisor first assigning
associated resources with a respective VF in the SRIOV SAS
adapter, as taught and claimed by Applicant.
App. Br. 22-23; see also Reply Br. 4--5.
111.
For the limitations that said resource manager, running an
assignment process each time the SRIOV SAS adapter is reset,
assigning HBA resources to said VFs persistently remembering
the assignments, and communicating the assignments to said
partition supervisor, the Examiner cites FIGS. 3, 4A--4D,
paragraphs 0045, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0059, and 0062 of Goggin.
Applicant respectfully submits that the virtualization
intermediary mapping information created by Goggin with the
SCSI target emulation module 322 that maps virtual SCSI logical
units to physical SCSI targets and physical SCSI logical units
located in storage 308 providing the mapping information
resident on the VF 316, does not suggest, nor equivalent to said
resource manager running an assignment process each time the
5
Appeal2017-011857
Application 14/840,3 51
SRIOV SAS adapter is reset, assigning HBA resources to said
VFs persistently remembering the assignments.
The Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious
to modify the SR-IOV of Goggin in accordance with the teaching
ofBrownlow ['245], citing Brownlow ['245] at paragraphs 0012,
0013, 0143, and 0150. Applicant respectfully submits that
teachings of the Brownlow references when combined with
Goggin fail to suggest the recited limitations of claim 1: that said
resource manager, running an assignment process each time the
SRIOV SAS adapter is reset, assigning HBA resources to said
VFs persistently remembering the assignments, and
communicating the assignments to said partition supervisor.
App. Br. 23-24; see also Reply Br. 5-10.
IV.
Applicant respectfully submits that only Applicant teach
disabling configuration and management Application
Programming Interfaces (APis) on the VFs, and this feature is
not suggested nor equivalent the teaching of Goggin that requires
providing the VF driver 321 that acts as a 'para-virtual' device
that knows which commands to direct to the first HSA PCI
memory space 311 and knows which commands to direct to the
second HSA PCI memory space 313. The combined total
teachings of Goggin and the Brownlow references would not
achieve these claimed features of the invention. Neither Goggin
nor the Brownlow references suggest disabling APis on the VFs
and only enabling APis on the PF.
App. Br. 24--25; see also Reply Br. 10-14.
V.
The total teachings of Goggin and Brownlow ['245]
provide no motivation, suggestion or teaching to support the
Examiner's proposed modification to provide a resource
manager, running an assignment process each time the SRIOV
SAS adapter is reset, assigning HBA resources to said VFs
persistently remembering the assignments, and communicating
the assignments to said partition supervisor, as taught and
claimed by Applicant.
6
Appeal2017-011857
Application 14/840,3 51
App. Br. 25.
We are persuaded by the Examiner's findings, which we have adopted
as our own.
The Examiner's findings with respect to the argued limitations are
supported by evidence drawn from the record. Appellants' arguments
characterize the cited prior art, but fail to adequately explain why the
Examiner's findings are incorrect. Thus, we do not see any errors in the
Examiner's findings.
For example, Goggin discloses a physical function for configuration
and management of multiple virtual functions. See Advisory Act. 2 ( citing
Goggin ,r,r 29--32, 36, 39--41, 45, Figs. 2, 3). Goggin discloses a "PF is used
to control the physical services of the device and to manage individual VFs."
Goggin ,r 31. Goggin discloses a "physical function, such as PF 222 in this
example that is associated with a virtual function 228 is responsible for
allocating, resetting, and de-allocating that virtual function and the PCI
resources required by that virtual function." Goggin ,r 32.
For example, Goggin discloses a hypervisor storing a configuration
interface and including a PF driver associated with the PF. See Advisory
Act. 2 (citing Goggin ,r,r 15, 30, 41, 47, Figs. 2, 3, 4A--4B). Goggin discloses
a "PF driver 318 communicates information between the PF 314 and the
virtualization intermediary 310." Goggin ,r 41.
For example, Goggin discloses enabling multiple VFs to be assigned
to a single system partition, when activating a system partition, the
hypervisor first assigns associated resources with a respective VF in the
SRIOV SAS adapter using the PF driver. See Advisory Act. 3 ( citing
Goggin ,r,r 30-32, 39--41, 45, 60-62, Fig. 4C). Goggin discloses "the HSA
7
Appeal2017-011857
Application 14/840,3 51
320 requests to the virtual SCSI target emulation module 322 to forward a
virtual target emulation mapping 317 comprising the first and second
mapping metadata 361 and 363 to the VF 316 corresponding to the VM 304
that is being instantiated." Goggin ,r 62.
For example, Goggin discloses the resource manager assigning HBA
resources to the VFs, persistently remembering the assignments, and
communicating the assignments to the partition supervisor. See Advisory
Act. 3 (citing Goggin ,r,r 50-51, 56, 59, 62, Figs. 3, 4A--4D). Goggin
discloses "during the resource provisioning phase, the above-mentioned
virtual port is allocated and persistently associated with the VF 316."
Goggin ,r 54; see also Ans. 9 (citing Goggin ,r 54).
For example, Brownlow '245 discloses the resource manager runs an
assignment process each time the SRIOV SAS adapter is reset. See
Advisory Act. 5---6 (citing Brownlow '245 ,r,r 145-146, 161-162, 166, 171).
Brownlow '245 discloses "[i]f recovery involves a physical function or
virtual function level reset (FLR), or an adapter reset, the physical function
reconfigures the SRIOV capabilities of each physical function, rebinds, and
reinitializes resources previously bound to the physical functions and virtual
functions." Brownlow '245 ,r 171.
For example, Goggin discloses disabling configuration and
management Application Programming Interfaces (APis) on the VFs, and
enabling configuration and management Application Programming
Interfaces (APis) only on the PF. See Advisory Act. 3--4 (citing Goggin
,r,r 42--43, 65, 70-71, Figs. 4C--4D). Goggin discloses "the SCSI target
emulation located on the VF 316 can be simplified does not have to service
nonread/write commands." Goggin ,r 71.
8
Appeal2017-011857
Application 14/840,3 51
The Examiner's reasons to combine the references is rational and
supported by evidence drawn from the record. Appellants' arguments fail to
adequately explain why the Examiner's reasons are incorrect. Thus, we do
not see any errors in the Examiner's reasons to combine the references. See
Advisory Act. 6 (citing Brownlow '245 ,r,r 12-13, 143, 150); see also Ans.
15. Brownlow '245 discloses "Embodiments of the invention provide for
simpler and less error prone error handling." Brownlow '245 ,r 143.
We, therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 5-7 and 11,
which are not separately argued with particularity.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites "said hypervisor for persistently
storing correlation data associating HBA resources with a specific system
partition." The Examiner finds Goggin teaches the subject matter of claim
8. Final Act. 8 (citing Goggin ,r,r 50-51, 54, 59-60); see also Ans. 14--15.
Appellants argue Goggin and Brownlow '245 do not teach the subject
matter of claim 8. See App. Br. 26-29; see also Reply Br. 14--15.
We are persuaded by the Examiner's findings, which we have adopted
as our own. Appellants' arguments fail to adequately explain why the
Examiner's findings are incorrect.
Goggin discloses
Also, in the course of instantiating (i.e. creating) a new
virtual machine 304, the provisioning utility 350, allocates one
or more previously created virtual disks (i.e. virtual SCSI logical
units) to such new virtual machine 304. Many, perhaps hundreds
of virtual disks can be allocated to a given virtual machine 304.
Each virtual disk that is allocated to the given virtual machine
3 04 is assigned a unique virtual address represented by second
363 mapping.
Goggin ,r 59. Thus, Goggin teaches the subject matter of claim 8.
9
Appeal2017-011857
Application 14/840,3 51
We, therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 8.
We also sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 9, which is not
separately argued with particularity.
Regarding claim 10, Appellants do not present any particularized
arguments with respect to claim 10. See generally App. Br. and Reply Br.
We, therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 10 for
reasons discussed above when addressing intermediate claim 8 and base
claim 1.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 5-11 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
10