Ex Parte Bennett

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 1, 2010

10402199 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 1, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte STEVEN JAMES BENNETT
__________

Appeal 2009-006041
Application 10/402,199
Technology Center 2400
__________

Decided: March 1, 2010
__________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and STEPHEN C. SIU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-006041
Application 10/402,199

2
Invention
The “invention concern[s] storage-area networks, especially storage
routers and Fibre Channel [FC] switches suitable for such networks” (Spec.
1, ll. 6-8).
Independent claim 19 is illustrative:
19. A method comprising:
providing a FC switch having first zone
configuration data stored in a memory device in
the FC switch; and
automatically updating a backup zone
configuration data for the FC switch in a storage
router external to the FC switch.
References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Nguyen US 2003/0018756 A1 Jan. 23, 2003
Green US 2004/0022256 A1 Feb. 5, 2004
Banks US 6,980,525 B2 Dec. 27, 2005
Rejections
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Banks and Nguyen.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Green and Nguyen.
Claims 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Banks and Green.
Appeal 2009-006041
Application 10/402,199

3
ISSUE 1
The Examiner finds that Nguyen’s network device is a storage router
(Ans. 12-13).
Appellant submits that “Nguyen is entirely devoid of the term
‘router’” (App. Br. 12).
Issue: Did Appellant demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding
that Banks and Nguyen would have taught or suggested a zone data set
located in a memory device in a storage router coupled to an FC-compliant
switch?
ISSUE 2
The Examiner finds that Green teaches an iSCSI-compliant device
(Ans. 7).
Appellant submits that Green’s teachings regarding Infiniband are not
related to iSCSI-compliant storage routers (App. Br. 13).
Issue: Did Appellant demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding
that Green and Nguyen would have taught or suggested an iSCSI-compliant
storage router in a network?
ISSUE 3
Appellant argues that “for reasons analogous to those stated above, a
description of InfiniBand fails to disclose or suggest subject matter related to
iSCSI-compliant input-output commands” (App. Br. 15).
Appeal 2009-006041
Application 10/402,199

4
Issue: Did Appellant demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding
that Banks and Green would have taught or suggested receiving, outputting,
and responding to iSCSI-compliant input-output commands?
ISSUE 4
Appellant submits that “the Final Office Action fails to point out in
Green or in Banks any disclosure or suggestion of ‘at least one iSCSI host
computer’” (App. Br. 16).
Issue: Did Appellant demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding
that Banks and Green would have taught or suggested an iSCSI host
computer?
ISSUE 5
The Examiner finds that “Banks teaches a way of storing backup zone
configuration data for [a] FC switch” (Ans. 20).
Appellant submits that “Banks fails to teach a router, so can not teach
storing zone configuration in a router” (App. Br. 16). Appellant further
submits that “Banks itself teaches away from . . . storing backup zone
configuration data for the FC switch in a storage router external to the FC
switch” (id.).
Issue: Did Appellant demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding
that Banks and Green would have taught or suggested automatically
updating backup zone configuration data for an FC switch in a storage router
external to the FC switch?
Appeal 2009-006041
Application 10/402,199

5
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
1. Nguyen teaches “a switching appliance having redundant Fiber
Channel switches” (Abstract), where “a switch is a network device
that selects a path or circuit for sending a unit of data to its next
destination” (¶ [0026]).
2. Nguyen teaches that “[c]omputing components which may be
coupled to switching appliance 10 include, but are not limited to,
personal computers, server systems, server clusters, other
networks, storage devices, Fibre Channel to SCSI bridges, tape
backup units, tape libraries, printers as well as other devices”
(¶ [0039]).
3. Green teaches an “IB [Infiniband] network [that] includes a
‘fabric’ 104 that connects processor nodes 106, 108” (¶ [0026]).
4. Green teaches that, even though discussed in terms of gateways
between FC and IB networks, the disclosed zone enforcement and
meta-zone creation approaches “can also be applied by gateways
between other network protocols, including without limitation,
Ethernet, SCSI (Small Computer Systems Interface), iSCSI
(Internet SCSI), and TCP/IP networks” (¶ [0092]).
5. Banks teaches a “fabric [that] is typically constructed from one or
more fibre channel switches and each device . . . is coupled to the
fabric. Devices coupled to the fabric are capable of
Appeal 2009-006041
Application 10/402,199

6
communicating with every other device coupled to the fabric”
(col. 1, ll. 60-64).
6. Banks teaches “the Fibre Channel family of standards . . . defines a
high speed communications interface for the transfer of large
amounts of data via connections between a variety of hardware
devices, including devices such as personal computers,
workstations, mainframes, supercomputers, and storage devices”
(col. 1, ll. 43-51).
7. Banks teaches that
zoning software [that] loads zoning configuration
information in the form of a database into the CPU of each
switch. The zoning configuration database is replicated and
propagated to each individual fabric switch. . . . Since each
switch maintains its own copy of the zoning information, a
single switch failure will not interrupt zoning enforcement to
other devices on the fabric.
(col. 6, ll. 12-24).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim interpretation
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretations. . . . [L]imitations are not to be read into the
claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). A claim meaning is reasonable if one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim, read in light of the
Appeal 2009-006041
Application 10/402,199

7
specification, to encompass the meaning. See In re American Academy of
Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18 (1966). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results,”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007), especially if the
combination would not be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art,” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Nguyen discloses a
storage router. We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Nguyen teaches a switching appliance, which is a network device that
selects a path or circuit for sending a unit of data to its next destination
(FF 1). Nguyen’s switching appliance routes data, thus it is a router within
Appeal 2009-006041
Application 10/402,199

8
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. Storage devices can be
connected to Nguyen’s switching appliance (FF 2). Thus, Nguyen teaches a
storage router. Nguyen also teaches that Fibre Channel to SCSI bridges
(FC-compliant switches) can be connected to the switching appliance (id.).
Banks teaches a fabric constructed from fibre channel switches (FF 5)
with zone data sets on each switch (FF 7). Thus, the combination of Banks
and Nguyen would have taught or suggested a zone data set located in
(propagated to) a memory device in a storage router (switching appliance
connected to storage devices) coupled to an FC-compliant switch (Fibre
Channel to SCSI bridge).
For at least these reasons, we find that Appellant has not sustained the
requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-8 with
respect to this issue.
Issue 2
Appellant argues that Green’s teachings regarding Infiniband are not
related to iSCSI-compliant storage routers. We disagree.
Green’s teachings regarding Infiniband are related to iSCSI because
Green specifically identifies iSCSI as networking technology that works
with its zone enforcement and meta-zone creation teachings (FF 4). As
discussed above, Nguyen teaches a storage router (FF 1 , 2). Therefore,
Green and Nguyen would have taught or suggested an iSCSI-compliant
Appeal 2009-006041
Application 10/402,199

9
(described as related to Infiniband) storage-router (switching appliance
connected to storage devices) in a network.
For at least these reasons, we find that Appellant has not sustained the
requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 9-12 with
respect to this issue.
Issue 3
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal with respect to issue 3 on the basis of claim 13 alone. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Green teaches that its zone enforcement and meta-zone creation
teachings, discussed in terms of Infiniband, can be applied using iSCSI
(FF 4). Therefore, Green and Banks would have taught or suggested
receiving, outputting, and responding to iSCSI-compliant input-output
commands (zone enforcement and meta-zone creation using iSCSI).
For at least these reasons, we find that Appellant has not sustained the
requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 13-18 with
respect to this issue.
Issue 4
Appellant submits that Green and Banks do not disclose or suggest at
least one iSCSI host computer. We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive.
Appeal 2009-006041
Application 10/402,199

10
Green teaches an Infiniband network that includes a fabric connected
to at least one processor node (FF 3). Green discloses that the approaches it
teaches also apply to iSCSI (FF 4). Therefore, Green would have taught or
suggested at least one iSCSI host computer (a processor connected to a
network using iSCSI).
For at least these reasons, we find that Appellant has not sustained the
requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 18 with respect
to this issue.
Issue 5
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s reliance on Banks to teach
automatically updating backup zone configuration data, stored in an external
storage router, for an FC switch. We find Appellant’s arguments
unpersuasive.
Banks teaches a fabric constructed of fibre channel switches, enabling
devices coupled to the fabric to communicate with each other (FF 5). This
enables exchange of data with storage devices (FF 6). Thus, the fibre
channel switches of Banks are also storage routers (switches that enable
coupled devices, including storage devices, to communicate with each
other).
Banks also teaches replication and propagation of zoning information
to each individual fabric switch (FF 7). The failure of a single switch does
not interrupt zoning enforcement (id.). Therefore, Banks would have taught
Appeal 2009-006041
Application 10/402,199

11
or suggested automatically updating (replicating and propagating) backup
zone configuration data (information to enable uninterrupted zoning
enforcement) for an FC switch (a first switch) in a storage router (a second
switch, acting as a storage router) external to the FC switch.
For at least these reasons, we find that Appellant has not sustained the
requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 19-23 with
respect to this issue.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellant has not demonstrated:
1. that the Examiner erred in finding that Banks and Nguyen would
have taught or suggested a zone data set located in a memory device in a
storage router coupled to an FC-compliant switch (Issue 1);
2. that the Examiner erred in finding that Green and Nguyen would
have taught or suggested an iSCSI-compliant storage router in a network
(Issue 2);
3. that the Examiner erred in finding that Banks and Green would
have taught or suggested receiving, outputting, and responding to iSCSI-
compliant input-output commands (Issue 3);
4. that the Examiner erred in finding that Banks and Green would
have taught or suggested an iSCSI host computer (Issue 4); and
Appeal 2009-006041
Application 10/402,199

12
5. that the Examiner erred in finding that Banks and Green would
have taught or suggested automatically updating backup zone configuration
data for an FC switch in a storage router external to the FC switch (Issue 5).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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).

AFFIRMED

msc

SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402