Ex Parte Balasubramanian et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201610425567 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 10/425,567 04/29/2003 Shankar Balasubramanian 112-0057US 2098 85197 7590 01/04/2017 EXAMINER RrnoaHe c/o Blank Rome LLP TIV, BACKHEAN 717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400 Houston, TX 77002 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2451 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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): klutsch@counselip.com acollins@blankrome.com hou stonpatents @ blankrome .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHANKAR BALASUBRAMANIAN, BALAKUMAR N. KAUSHIK, and RICHARD L. HAMMONS Appeal 2016-002958 Application 10/425,567 Technology Center 2400 Before: ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE1 Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—24. We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest is Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2016-002958 Application 10/425,567 THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants claimed invention is directed generally “to copying data between devices” on a storage area network. (Spec. para. 1). Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A network device for use in a Fibre Channel fabric, with a host, a copy engine and two storage devices coupled to the Fibre Channel fabric, the network device comprising: a first port for connection to the host; a second port for coupling to the copy engine; and a module coupled to said first port and said second port for receiving a copy command, directing copying of data between the storage devices, provided by the host to a well known address and for transmitting a copy command, directing copying of data between the storage devices, directed to the copy engine. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Latif US 6,400,730 B1 June 4, 2002 Vahalia US 6,816,891 B1 Nov. 9, 2004 Torr US 2003/0149830 A1 Aug. 7, 2003 Wilkes US 2003/0208614 A1 Nov. 6, 2003 “American National Standard for Information Technology - Fibre Channel - Fabric Generic Requirements (FC-FG)”, ANSI XJ.289-1996, American National Standards Institute, New York, NY, 1997 (hereinafter “ANSI”). REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Torr, Latif, and ANSI. 2 Appeal 2016-002958 Application 10/425,567 The Examiner rejected claims 2, 8, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Torr, Latif, ANSI, and Wilkes. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Torr, Latif, ANSI, and Vahalia. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 11, 17, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Torr, Latif, ANSI, Vahalia, and Wilkes. FINDINGS OF FACT We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence. 1. Torr discloses at Figure 2 a diagram of a system involving a host system 201, a module 110, and a copy engine 112, shown below: 210 202 204 11Q « Packet Transformer < | (FIBRE Chan-no! Switch) ( ' (optional]! > 120 - Internet (optional) 112 Third Part Copy Engine (•'3PCET —* > * 120—v,-*r Internet (optional) / 124 — / BAN / (optional) 114 RAID device [ .-----v.j PAID device Fig 2 Figure 2 of Torr shows host 201, module 110, and copy engine 112. 2. Torr discloses: 3 Appeal 2016-002958 Application 10/425,567 The third party copy engine (“3PCE”) architecture of FIG. 2 shows the 3PCE 112 as being physically distinct from the data storage devices 114, 116 and 118. The host 201 is shown as connecting to the 3PCE 112 through an optional packet transformer 110 (such as a FIBRE CHANNEL SWITCH) and also optionally through the internet 120. (Torr para. 22). 3. ANSI defines “well-known addresses” as: a “set of address identifiers defined in FC-PH to access global server functions such as a Directory server.” (ANSI p. 4). 4. ANSI discloses the “Fabric provides an address mapping between certain well-known addresses (see 4.6.1) and the service elements, or servers, that respond to those addresses.” (ANSI p. 12). 5. ANSI discloses one service element function example, stating “[fjabric control may include such functions as: . . . Parsing and routing of frames directed to well-known addresses.” (ANSI p. 12). 6. ANSI discloses one specific address and routing function, in that “Fabric F Port/Login server” is addressed at well-known address “FFFFFE,” and “[w]hen the F_ Port receives a Fabric Login (FLOGI) frame with a D_ID of hex 'FFFFFE' it routes the frame to the Fabric Login server.” (ANSI p. 12). 7. ANSI discloses zones: For many environments, it is not appropriate for certain Nodes to communicate with other Nodes. There may exist system and application boundaries that must be guarded. The Fabric may support subdividing Regions and Extended Regions into independent partitions for purely administrative purposes. These administered partitions are called Zones. (ANSI p. 8). 4 Appeal 2016-002958 Application 10/425,567 8. Latif discloses a network of two fibre channel domains separated by a gigabit Ethernet bridge network, with a host in one domain and storage devices in a second domain, in Figure 12A, shown below: LCffll i L» PQMACf 2 i jg]------ « SEMES k flWHl___A i uI M A I il-- “ Itape ui* a re ~\ « S-......"fi V, A RETSORA flASKSGSE eiee TAPE LIBRARY G SlftCfS .rm% local mm i s i fc _pn i P"------liJ! \ SERVES ! 1 ffi ! n I FC RAC* 8 TAPE LfflRAiri SWITCH | f Figure 12A of Fatif is shown above illustrating a local fibre domain 1 with server A and local fibre domain 3 with RAID B and tape library B, separated by gigabit Ethernet network named local domain 2. 9. The Examiner equates a fibre “domain” with a fibre “zone.” (Answer 11). 10. ANSI defines domain as the “highest or most significant hierarchical level in the three-level addressing hierarchy.” (ANSI p. 3). 11. ANSI discloses how domains relate to a fabric: Within the recommended address space partitioning is a hierarchical division of the address space reserved for Port Identifiers into logical or administrative entities described as Domain, Area, and Port. The suggestion is that, for addressing purposes, Ports are members of Areas, Areas are members of Domains, and Domains are partitions of the Fabric. (ANSIp. 12). 5 Appeal 2016-002958 Application 10/425,567 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 24 Initially, we note that the Appellants argue independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 together as a group. (Appeal Br. 20). Correspondingly, we select representative claim 1 to decide the appeal of these claims, with remaining claims 7, 13, and 19 standing or falling with claim 1. Appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of claims 6, 12, 18, and 24 that depend from claims 1, 7, 13, and 19. Thus, claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 24 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c)(l)(vii). Appellants state, the “Final Office Action remarks [ ] apparently have the address of the copy engine being the well-known address” (Appeal Br. 19), and, thus, argue error with the Examiner’s substituting the destination address of the copy engine with a “well-known address,” because “well- known addresses are associated with the fabric only, they cannot be the addresses of devices” (Appeal Br. 8). Appellants, thus, argue that changing the destination address of the third-party copy engine 112 to a fibre channel “well-known address” would “change the copy engine from its specific, individual function to a global server function,” which is counter to the way a copy engine works. (Appeal Br. 20). We disagree with Appellants and are not persuaded by the arguments at pages 7—20 of the Appeal Brief, and pages 3—22 of the Reply Brief. Claim 1 recites a “module” that connects to both a host and a copy engine, where the module is reached from the host via a well-known fibre channel 6 Appeal 2016-002958 Application 10/425,567 address2. Contrary to the Appellants’ reading of the rejection, the Examiner does not map the copy engine of Torr to the module, but instead maps the “packet transformer 110” to the claimed module. (Final Act. 3^4; see also Answer 5). The Examiner, thus, substitutes the various addresses possible for host communication to module 110 of Torr, with a “well-known address” from ANSI, to transform the module 110 of Torr to a fibre network global service providing device, thus, meeting the claim language. (Id.). This substitution of addresses in Torr, from Torr’s versions, to the ANSI well- known address, is disclosed by ANSI, which discloses “global service functions” at “well-known addresses” (FF 3). These “global service functions” may map addresses and route packets (FF 4—6). ANSI, thus, discloses a general network service that receives packets and routes them to specific devices. The content of the control packet, and destination of the device being a copy engine, does not alter the basic function of receiving and directing that command, as recited in claim 1. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that the ordinary artisan, encountering Torr’s element 110, and ANSI’s well-known addresses and global functions to route commands, would have known to use the well-known addresses to route commands, such as copy commands to devices as taught by the copy engine in Torr. As a result, we affirm the rejection of claim 1, as well as of claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 24. 2 We find that the preamble term “Fibre Channel” gives meaning to language in the body of the claim, such as “well-known address,” and, thus, receives patentable weight. See Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (An element initially recited in the preamble, is only thereafter fully incorporated into the body of the claim so as to breathe life and breadth into it by setting forth the complete combination). 7 Appeal 2016-002958 Application 10/425,567 Claims 2, 8, 14, and 20 Appellants do not advance arguments directed to dependent claims 2, 8, 14, and 20, so we affirm the rejection of these claims. (Appeal Br. 27). Claims 5, 11, 17, and 23 Appellants do not advance arguments directed to dependent claims 5, 11, 17, and 23, so we affirm the rejection of these claims. (Appeal Br. 27). Claims 3, 9, 15, and 21 Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein there are a plurality of zones in the Fibre Channel fabric and said module confirms that the host has zoning authority to request the copy between the storage devices.” Dependent claims 9, 15, and 21 recite substantially identical language. We select claim 3 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants argue that Latif fails to disclose zones in a fibre channel fabric, because the domains in Latif are not fibre channel fabric zones, and, thus, Latif fails to disclose a “plurality of zones.” (Appeal Br. 21—25; see also Reply Br. 22—30). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, because ANSI discloses zones in a fabric, such that the ordinary artisan would recognize fabrics from ANSI in which “there are a plurality of zones” as claimed. (FF 7). This is consistent with the Examiner’s findings. (Answer 11). 8 Appeal 2016-002958 Application 10/425,567 Claims 4, 10, 16, and 22 Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein the host is not in a zone with the two storage devices.” Dependent claims 10, 16, and 22 recite substantially identical language. We select claim 4 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants argue that the meaning of “not in a zone with the two storages devices” means that the host is in a “different zone” from the two storages devices, and the host, therefore, “cannot communicate” with either storage device under fibre channel rules. (Appeal Br. 25—27). Appellants, thus, argue the Examiner “is ignoring the meaning of the term ‘zone’ in Fibre Channel.” (Reply Br. 30—31). The Examiner, relying on Figure 12A of Latif, finds the host in one fibre “domain” is not in the same “domain” as the two storages devices in a second fibre “domain,” and, thus, is “not in a zone with the two storage devices.” (Answer 11; see also Final Act. 10). We disagree with the Examiner because under the fibre channel reference provided in the record, ANSI, a zone and a domain are not equivalent, as the Examiner finds. (FF 9). ANSI discloses a zone is an administrative partition with guarded boundaries. (FF 7). ANSI also discloses a domain is part of an addressing scheme for a fabric. (FF 11). Because these definitions address different aspects of fibre channel network fabric specifications and operation, a zone cannot be a domain, and hence we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 4, 10, 16, and 22. 9 Appeal 2016-002958 Application 10/425,567 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—15, 17—21, 23, and 24. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 10, 16, and 22. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—3, 5—9, 11-15, 17-21, 23, and 24 are AFFIRMED. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 10, 16, and 22 is REVERSED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation