Ex Parte Basham et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 20, 201412039496 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2014) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation