Ex Parte Basham et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 20, 2014

12039496 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2014)

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.
12/039,496 02/28/2008 Robert Beverley Basham SJO920070045US1 7604
54858 7590 08/20/2014
IBM CORP. (WIP)
c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C.
17304 PRESTON ROAD
SUITE 200
DALLAS, TX 75252
EXAMINER
AILES, BENJAMIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2442
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/20/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT BEVERLEY BASHAM,
DEANNA LYNN QUIGG BROWN, KELLY LOUISE HICKS,
ANDREW GARY HOURSELT, REZAUL SHAH MOHAMMAD ISLAM,
ASHAKI AYANNA RICKETTS, TERESA SHEN SWINGLER,
and THEODORE BRIAN VOJNOVICH
____________

Appeal 2012-004915
Application 12/039,496
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1–3, 5, 9–14, and 16–25. Claims 4, 6–8, and 15 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-004915
Application 12/039,496

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention “is directed to a system and method for zoning
of devices, such as serial attached SCSI (SAS) devices, for example, in a
storage area network (SAN) based on logical unit number (LUN)
masking/mapping.” (Spec. ¶ 2.) Claim 13 illustrates the claimed subject
matter:
13. A data processing system for zoning a storage area
network with logical unit number masking/mapping, the data
processing system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory
comprising instructions which, when executed by the processor
cause the processor to:
provide a graphical user interface for performing logical
unit number masking/mapping such that a user maps one or
more servers to one or more logical volumes at a chassis level
to form a logical unit number mapping, wherein providing a
graphical user interface further comprises providing a mixed
mapping graphical indicator and expanding the mixed mapping
graphical indicator such that a user maps one or more servers to
one or more logical volumes at a blade level;
receive user input responsive to the graphical user
interface that represents a mapping of one or more servers to
one or more logical volumes to form a logical unit number
mapping;
apply the logical unit number mapping in a storage
manager, and
automatically zone the storage area network based on the
logical unit number mapping in a storage area network
manager.
Appeal 2012-004915
Application 12/039,496

3
REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 5, 9–14, and 16–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Shah (US 2005/0240727 Al; Oct. 27, 2005)
and Aziz (US 7,103,647 B2; Sept. 5, 2006).
ISSUE
The following issue is dispositive of this appeal: Does the cited art
teach or suggest “automatically zon[ing] the storage area network based on
the logical unit number mapping in a storage area network manager” as
recited in claim 13 (and all the independent claims)?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found Appellants’ written description did not
adequately define the term “zoning” or “support what is considered ‘zoning’
as claimed.” (Ans. 11.) In light of these deficiencies, the Examiner
concluded “zoning,” given its broadest reasonable interpretation, meant
simply “a method of grouping different servers with different storage
devices.” (Id. at 12.) The Examiner found Shah disclosed such “zoning,” as
Shah taught grouping LUNs and managing server groups based on LUN
assignments. (Id.)
Appellants contend the Examiner misconstrued the term “zoning,”
improperly equating zoning with LUN mapping. (See Reply Br. 6–7.)
According to Appellants, “zoning” comprises “creat[ing] distinct subsets
such that a server in one zone can see the storage in its zone but cannot see
the storage in a different zone.” (Id. at 7.) By contrast, LUN mapping
merely “creates an association between servers and storage.” (Id.)
Appellants argue Shah does not teach or suggest “zoning” when construed in
this manner. (Id.)
Appeal 2012-004915
Application 12/039,496

4
We agree with Appellants. Contrary to the Examiner’s finding,
Appellants’ written description provides an explicit definition of the term
“zoning”: “Zoning is a network-layer access control mechanism that dictates
which storage subsystems are visible to which host systems.” (Spec. ¶ 4.)
The written description also describes an exemplary “zoning” operation.
(See id. ¶ 65.) Given this disclosure, we agree the Examiner erred by
construing “zoning” to encompass “a method of grouping different servers
with different storage devices.” (Ans. 12.) As suggested by Appellants,
“zoning” involves “dictat[ing] which storage subsystems are visible to which
host systems.” (Spec. ¶ 4.) Because the Examiner has not established Shah
teaches or suggests “zoning” under this construction of the term, we will not
sustain the rejection of claim 13. As claims 1–3, 5, 9–12, 14, and 16–25
either depend from claim 13 or include similar limitations, we also decline to
sustain the rejection of these claims.

DECISION
For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1–
3, 5, 9–14, and 16–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

msc