Ex Parte Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 17, 2019

14029237 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/029,237 09/17/2013
65384 7590 01/22/2019
TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP
IBM Tucson
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Theresa M. Brown
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TUC920130110US 1 1566
EXAMINER
OHBA, MELLISSA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2019 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
tmunoz@tcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THERESA M. BROWN, EDUARD A. DIEL,
GREGORY E. MCBRIDE, and DAVID M. SHACKELFORD
Appeal2018-005892
Application 14/029,237
Technology Center 2100
Before LARRY J. HUME, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-005892
Application 14/029,237
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to point-in-time copying of data within an
asynchronous data mirroring environment. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
A computer-implemented method for data m1rronng,
compnsmg:
rece1vmg a request to m1trnte an asynchronous data
mirroring operation associated with a first point-in-time copying
process, the first point-in-time copying process being
coordinated by a primary storage controller between a first
primary volume and a second primary volume, the primary
storage controller having an associated side file;
processing a first set of establish data to generate a point-
in-time establish reservation, the first set of establish data
associated with the first point-in-time copying process establish;
using the point-in-time establish reservation to generate a
second set of establish data when the second point-in-time
copying process can be performed; and
using the second set of establish data to initiate a second
point-in-time copying process, the second point-in-time copying
process being coordinated by a secondary storage controller
between a first secondary volume and a second secondary
volume; and
wherein the point-in-time establish reservation is assigned
a point-in-time copy sequence number configured to coordinate
a corresponding point-in-time copying process establish check-
in, the point-in-time sequence number being generated by the
1 Appellants are also the Applicants, International Business Machines
Corporation, and the real party in interest (Br. 1 ).
2
Appeal2018-005892
Application 14/029,237
primary storage controller at the time of Track Information Field
creation, the point-in-time sequence number being included
within a Track Information Field and point-in-time copy
parameter list of the side file.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Micka
Thompson
Gundy
US 5,592,618 Jan. 7, 1997
US 2012/0150811 Al June 14, 2012
US 2012/0254114 Al Oct. 4, 2012
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Gundy and Micka.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Gundy, Micka, and Thompson.
the
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination of Gundy and Micka do not teach
point-in-time establish reservation to generate a second set of
establish data when the second point-in-time copying process
can be performed, much less using the second set of establish
data to initiate a second point-in-time copying process, the
second point-in-time copying process being coordinated by a
secondary storage controller between a first secondary volume
and a second secondary volume.
Br. 4. In particular, Appellants argue, without more, that the "point-in-time
copy sequence number configured to coordinate a corresponding point-in-
time copying process establish check-in as disclosed and claimed is
3
Appeal2018-005892
Application 14/029,237
patentably distinct from the self describing record of Micka." Id. We are
not persuaded by this conclusory argument. Rather, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Gundy teaches generating a second point-in-time
copy, and Micka teaches data consistencies through predetermined time
intervals and a period schedule of consistency validation of the database
through point-in-time comparisons. Ans. 3---6 (citing Gundy ,r,r 21-24, 34--
35; Micka 4:28--44, 8:47-15:5).
Appellants also argue that Gundy fails to teach this element of claim 1
because
a disclosure of a sequence number contained within a track
information field is not a disclosure or suggestion of the point-
in-time sequence number being generated by the primary
storage controller at the time of Track Information Field
creation, the point-in-time sequence number being included
within a Track Information Field and a point-in-time copy
parameter list of the side file,
as required by claims 1, 7, and 13. Br. 5. We are not persuaded by this
unsupported argument because as the Examiner explains, "Micka teaches
that a determination is made that the primary site and secondary site are out
of synch and a failure has occurred," and due to failure the primary site
aborts or suspends copying, while Gundy teaches generating a second point-
in-time copy and that point-in-time parameters are generated. Ans. 7 ( citing
Micka 3:32--47, 4:4--27; Gundy ,r,r 21-24, 34--35, 44--46, Table 1). Gundy
also explicitly teaches generating a side file entry having the parameters and
a track information field associated with the point-in-time copy parameters.
Id.; see also Gundy, Abstract, ,r,r 6-8, 14--17, 44--46. We also agree with the
Examiner's findings that Gundy and Micka both disclose a determination
regarding whether "second point-in-time copying process [ will] be
4
Appeal2018-005892
Application 14/029,237
successfully performed," because Micka explains that determination is made
that the primary site and secondary site are out of synch and a failure has
occurred, and due to failure the primary site aborts or suspends copying.
Ans. 8-9 (citing Micka 3:32--47, 4:4--27).
Absent persuasive rebuttal or technical arguments to the contrary, we
find no error in the Examiner's findings. 2
Regarding Appellants' cursory arguments with respect to dependent
claims 2, 6, 8, 12, and 14 (Br. 5---6), the Examiner provides a comprehensive
response to Appellants' arguments. We agree with and adopt the
Examiner's findings and conclusions in the Final Rejection and Answer.
Final Act. 7, 17; Ans. 8-9. In particular, the Examiner explains how Gundy
teaches:
If the verification is unsuccessful, at 218, then the secondary
host system 112 sends a response to the primary storage
controller 104 indicating that the first secondary volume 116
cannot be point-in-time copied to the second secondary volume
118. At 220, the primary storage controller receives this
response and in tum sends a response to the primary host
system 102 that the point-in-time copy command cannot be
fulfilled.
Ans. 8 ( citing Gundy ,r 57). Micka teaches that a determination is made that
the primary site and secondary site are out of synch and a failure has
occurred, and due to failure the primary site aborts or suspends copying. Id.
at 8-9. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Gundy and Micka both
teach a determination of "whether it is possible for the second point-in-time
copying process to be successfully performed."
2 We note Appellants did not file a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner's
factual findings and legal conclusions in the Answer.
5
Appeal2018-005892
Application 14/029,237
We also agree that Gundy, Micka, and Thompson teach the claimed
"the point-in-time establish reservation is synchronously established over a
Peer-To-Peer Remote Copy (PPRC) [L ]ink" at least because Thompson
explains that the side file 110 is synchronously established and over a PPRC
link. Ans. 9 ( emphasis omitted) ( citing Thompson ,r,r 17, 54 ).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8,
12, and 14 and under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because Appellants have not
presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially
the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of the
claims above, the remaining pending claims fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-20.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6