Ex Parte Baldwin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 4, 2011

10161043 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 4, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte DUANE MARK BALDWIN, PAUL LAWRENCE BRADSHAW,
BARBARA J. CAMACHO, RON HERSHEL CLARK, ALIREZA
RAZZAGHI DARYAN, DANIEL GRAHAM DOUGLAS, ROMAN
DAVID DRUKER, DOUGLAS PAUL DUNHAM, DAVID WILSON
GROVES, ALLEN ROBEERT HEITMAN, VINCENT JOMARTIN
HOANG, NANCY LOTT HOBBS, LISA ANNE HUSTON, GREGORY
JOHN KNIGHT, DAVID LYNN MERBACH, AMIR NAKHFOROUSH,
VINH-THUAN NGUYEN-PHUC, GREGORY JOHN TEVIS, and
WILLIAM ROY YONKER
_____________

Appeal 2009-007868
Application 10/161,043
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and BRADLEY W.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007868
Application 10/161,043

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 11, 13, 65 through 73, 75, 77, and 79 through 81.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system for managing a storage area
network (SAN) where hosts computers have agents that identify attributes
associated with the host. The agents report these attributes to a network
manager. See pages 5 and 6 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A system in communication with network including a plurality of
hosts coupled via an interconnect device with one or more storage units,
comprising:
a manager;
a plurality of agents in communication with the manager, wherein
each agent resides on one host and interacts directly with a host operating
system, wherein each agent includes a plurality of subagent services
including subagent services that implement logical unit assignments,
perform host file system monitoring, and discover hosts, interconnect
devices, and storage units connected to the host on which the agent resides;
and
wherein the manager receives information on the hosts, interconnect
devices, and storage units discovered by the agents and uses the received
information to manage the network.

REFERENCES
Johnson US 2002/0161596 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
Honma US 6,950,871 B1 Sep. 27, 2005

2

Appeal 2009-007868
Application 10/161,043

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 11, 65 through 70, 72, 73,
75, 77, and 79 through 81 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Honma in view of Johnson. Answer 3 through 11.2
The Examiner has rejected claims 13 and 71 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Honma in view of Johnson and Official Notice.
Answer 11.

ISSUES
Claims 1, 3 through 6, 65, 67, 72, 73, 75, and 77
Appellants’ contentions on pages 11 through 15 of the Appeal Brief3
present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the
combination of Honma and Johnson teaches subagent services that discover
information on the interconnect devices to manage the network as claimed?

Claims 2 and 66
Appellants’ contentions on pages 16 and 17 of the Appeal Brief,
present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the
combination of Honma and Johnson teaches that the manager correlates
attributes identified by the agents to determine the topology of the network?

2 Throughout this decision we refer to the Examiner’s Answer dated July 2,
2008.
3 Throughout this decision we refer to the Appeal Brief dated April 29, 2008.
3

Appeal 2009-007868
Application 10/161,043

Claims 7 and 68
Appellants’ contentions on pages 17 and 18 of the Appeal Brief,
present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the
combination of Honma and Johnson teaches that the agents notify the
manager of events indicative of change in status of one or more attributes?

Claims 8 and 69
Appellants’ contentions on pages 19 and 20 of the Appeal Brief,
present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the
combination of Honma and Johnson teaches that the agents monitor
attributes of a file system utilized by the host and generate an event
notification?

Claim 9
Appellants’ contentions on pages 20 and 21 of the Appeal Brief,
present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the
combination of Honma and Johnson teaches that monitored attributes of a
file are capacity, percentage of system being utilized or a comparison of the
percentage utilized with respect to a threshold?

Claim 10
Appellants’ contentions on pages 21 and 22 of the Appeal Brief,
present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the
combination of Honma and Johnson teaches responding by assigning
additional storage units?

4

Appeal 2009-007868
Application 10/161,043

Claims 11 and 70
Appellants’ contentions on page 22 of the Appeal Brief, present us
with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Honma and Johnson teaches that the agents communicate with the manager
via a second network?

Claims 79, 80, and 81
Appellants’ contentions on page 22 of the Appeal Brief, present us
with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Honma and Johnson teaches that the manager maintains a list of queries to
perform against a set of inband agents and outband scanners?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3 through 6, 65, 67, 72, 73, 75, and 77
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s finding that the combination of Honma and Johnson teaches
subagent services that discover information on the interconnect devices to
manage the network as claimed. Appellants argue that though Honma
describes a centralized monitoring console that maintains information on
assignment of logical devices to hosts and information on network topology;
Honma does not teach that the information is provided by agents, or
subagents, residing on the host. Brief 12. Appellants argue that Johnson
does not remedy these deficiencies and assert that the Examiner has not cited
to a teaching in Johnson of subagent services that discover interconnect
devices to provide to the manger to manage the network. Brief 13 - 14. The
5

Appeal 2009-007868
Application 10/161,043

Examiner responds by stating that Johnson, in paragraph 41, teaches that
agents obtain topology information which includes the relationship between
host and storage. Answer 13. Further, the Examiner finds that the skilled
artisan would understand that topology information is a representation of the
layout of a network and that Honma (in column 12) and Johnson (in
paragraph 30) discloses that the fabric topology (layout) of the network
includes information about interconnect storage devices. Answer 13.
We concur with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
We note that paragraph 41 of Johnson states that the agents and/or other
portions of the host system discover all information useful to management
and monitoring of the subsystem. Also paragraph 41, by stating that all
information useful is monitored, contemplates that additional information
beyond that expressed in the examples, such as the network fabric topology
as discussed in Honma, may also be monitored. Thus, Appellants’
arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Honma and Johnson teaches subagent services that gather
information on the interconnect devices to manage the network, as claimed,
as we find that there is ample evidence to support the Examiner’s finding.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3 through 6,
65, 67, 72, 73, 75, and 77.

Claims 2 and 66
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Honma and Johnson teaches that the Manager
correlates attributes identified by the agents to determine the topology of the
network. The Examiner, relying upon page 61 of Appellants’ Specification,
6

Appeal 2009-007868
Application 10/161,043

construes the term “correlates” as to pull together information to create a
representation of the topology of the network. Answer 14-15. Based upon
this interpretation the Examiner finds that Johnson’s disclosure in paragraph
41 of discovering information from various agents meets the feature of
correlating the information. Answer 15. Appellants’ arguments have not
addressed these findings by the Examiner, thus, Appellants have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in making these findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 66.

Claims 7 and 68
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Honma and Johnson teaches that the agents notify
the manager of events indicative of change in status of one or more
attributes. The Examiner finds that Johnson in paragraph 69 teaches that
the agents send events to the management system to delete or update
outdated information. Answer 15. Further, the Examiner finds that
paragraph 62 teaches that the changes include status of devices (agents).
Answer 15. Appellants’ arguments have not addressed these findings by the
Examiner. Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in making these findings, so we accordingly sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 7 and 68.

Claims 8 and 69
Appellants’ have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Honma and Johnson teaches that the agents monitor
attributes of a file system utilized by the host and generate a event
7

Appeal 2009-007868
Application 10/161,043

notification. The Examiner finds that Honma in column 11 teaches that the
management console monitors data including whether data has been
destroyed and sends messages to notify service personnel of a problem with
the file. Answer 16. Based upon this, the Examiner finds that determining
whether data has been destroyed implies a monitoring of the file system
since the data is part of the storage device’s file system. Answer 16.
Further, the Examiner finds that paragraph 62 teaches that the changes
include status of devices (agents). Answer 15.
We concur with the Examiner’s finding as the claim term “attributes
of a file system used by the host” is broad enough to encompass the files.
Further, as discussed infra, with respect to claim 9, the Examiner also finds
that Johnson teaches monitoring to determine file system capacity. Thus,
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Honma and Johnson teaches that the agents monitor
attributes of a file system utilized by the host and generate a event
notification. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8
and 69.

Claim 9
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Honma and Johnson teaches that monitored
attributes of a file are capacity, percentage of system being utilized, or a
comparison of the percentage utilized with respect to a threshold. Initially,
we note that claim 9 recites these attributes in the alternative. Thus, as
stated by the Examiner, only one of them needs to be taught to meet the
claim. Answer 16. Further, the Examiner, citing column 41, finds that
8

Appeal 2009-007868
Application 10/161,043

Johnson teaches monitoring the file system’s capacity. We concur with this
finding by the Examiner. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 9.

Claim 10
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Honma and Johnson teaches responding by
assigning additional storage units. The Examiner finds that, as discussed
with respect to claim 8, Honma teaches sending notification when a file has
failed, and, further, that Honma teaches, in columns 10 and 11, assigning
additional storage when a unit has failed or when data is moved from one
volume to another. We concur with the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.

Claims 11 and 70
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Honma and Johnson teaches that the agents
communicate with the manager via a second network. The Examiner finds
that Honma’s SAN reads on the claimed first network and Honma’s LAN
reads on the second network. Answer 17. We concur with the Examiner’s
analysis. Honma is not relied upon to teach agents. It is when Homma is
combined with Johnson, that the agents, which are on the host, communicate
with the management software. As such, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us of error in the rejection of claims 11 and 70.

9

Appeal 2009-007868
Application 10/161,043

Claims 79, 80, and 81
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding that
the combination of Honma and Johnson teaches that the manager maintains
a list of queries to perform against a set of inband agents and outband
scanners. The Examiner finds that Johnson teaches these features in
paragraph 39. Answer 18. Appellants’ arguments have not addressed these
findings by the Examiner. Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in making these findings, and we accordingly sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 79, 80, and 81.

Claims 13 and 71
Appellants argue on page 23 and 24 of the Brief that these claims are
allowable for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 11 and 70.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of
claims 11 and 70. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 13 and 71.

CONCLUSION
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 11, 13,
65 through 73, 75, 76, 77, and 79 through 81 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 11, 13, 65
through 73, 75, 76, 77, and 79 through 81 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

10

Appeal 2009-007868
Application 10/161,043

AFFIRMED

ELD

KONRAD RAYNES & VICTOR, LLP.
ATTN: IBM37
315 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE, SUITE 210
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
11