Ex Parte Bruning et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 23, 2005

09286160 (B.P.A.I. May. 23, 2005)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication in and
is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte THEODORE E. BRUNING III, RANDAL S. MARKS, JULIA A.
HODGES, RYAN J. JOHNSON, BERT MARTENS, KAREN E. WORKMAN,
SUSAN G. ELKINGTON, RICHARD F. LARY, JESSE YANDELL, STEPHEN
SICOLA AND ROGER OAKEY
_____________
Appeal No. 2004-1190
Application No. 09/286,160
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before RUGGIERO, MACDONALD and NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 8 and 10 through 20. For the reasons
stated infra we reverse the examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Appeal No. 2004-1190
Application No. 09/286,160
2
The Invention
The invention relates to a system for a redundant array of independent disks
(RAID). See page 1 of appellants’ specification. The system makes use of
several back-end controllers each of which organizes and presents a group of
disks as a RAID. The system also uses a front-end controller which stripes the
RAID and presents the RAID as a large storage volume. The front-end controller
uses one of the back-end controllers as a primary storage location and another
back-end controller as a mirror to create a redundant storage location. See page
2 of appellants’ specification.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention.
1. An apparatus for providing a virtual volume, the apparatus
comprising:
a first plurality of disks;
a second plurality of back-end controllers coupled to the first
plurality of disks for organizing and presenting the first plurality of disks as
a third plurality of redundant arrays of disks; and
a front-end controller coupled to the second plurality of back-end
controllers for generating mirror sets from at least one of the disks in a
third plurality of redundant arrays of disks received from the second
plurality of back-end controllers, striping at least one of the disks in the
third plurality of redundant arrays of disks and presenting the striped
arrays as a virtual volume.
Appeal No. 2004-1190
Application No. 09/286,160
3
References
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Khosrowpour 5,991,844 Nov. 23, 1999
Pinson 6,256,748 Jul. 3, 2001
(filed Feb. 12, 1999)
Bergsten 6,282,610 Aug. 28, 2001
(filed Jan. 15, 1999)
Griffith 6,330,687 Dec. 11, 2001
(filed Nov. 13, 1998
Missiglia, Paul, “The RAID book, A Storage System Technology Handbook”, 6th
Edition, (February, 1997), pp. 6, 8, 10, 102, 151-157.
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 8, 11 through 16 and 18 through 20 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Massiglia in view of
Khosrowpour.
Claims 3 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Massiglia in view of Khosrowpour and Griffith.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Massiglia in view of Khosrowpour, Bergsten and Pinson.
Appeal No. 2004-1190
Application No. 09/286,160
4
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, appellants’ arguments set forth in the
brief along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellants and examiner, for the
reasons stated infra, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 8
and 10 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue on page 7 of the brief that the office action does not
provide a proper motivation to combine the references, as the combination would
produce an inoperative device. Further, applicant states:
In the present case, the proposed combination of the Massiglia and
Khosrowpour teachings would be inoperable. Massiglia teaches a single
controller that performs multiple types of RAID protection on a single array
of physical disks. The Khosrowpour teaches the use of redundant RAID
controllers to maintain data transfers in the event of a fault.
The combination of Massiglia and Khosrowpour suggested by the
Office Action is presumed to be achieved by using the dual RAID
controllers 140 and 200 to implement each of the layers in Massiglia (but,
this is not clear from the explanation provided in the Office Action).
However, each of the management layers in Massiglia performs different
RAID functions and mappings. In contrast, the Khosrowpour controllers
140, 200 are essentially and necessarily identical in function and
performance. Hence, if one were to combine these two references, the
functionality provided by the front-end controller and back-end controllers
Appeal No. 2004-1190
Application No. 09/286,160
5
of claim 1 would not be suggested. Alternatively, if the Khosrowpour
controllers 140, 200 were combined consistent with Massiglia, this
combination would fail to provide the redundant, failover function taught as
desirable by Khosrowpour.
In response, the examiner states, on page 14 of the answer:
The claim, for example claim 1, calls for a second plurality of back-end
controllers coupled to the first plurality of disks of organizing and
presenting the first plurality of disks as a third plurality of redundant arrays
of disk. This feature is taught by Massiglia, refer to Figure 73, page 151;
Figure 74, page 153- lower array management function(s)/ Mirroring Array
Management Function(s)). The lower array management function
organizes and presents the first plurality of disks as redundant arrays of
disks (mirrored). Additionally, claim 1, requires a front-end controller
coupled to the second plurality of back-end controllers for generating
mirror sets from at least one of the disks in a third plurality of redundant
arrays of disks received from the second plurality of back-end controllers,
striping at least one of the disks in the third plurality of redundant arrays of
disks and presenting the striped arrays as a virtual volume. Essentially,
the claimed front-end controller performs mirroring and striping. The
above rejection indicates that Massiglia teaches a front-end controller
which performs striping but does not also provide mirroring. Khosrowpour
is relied upon for teaching a controller which performs mirroring and
striping. The above rejection indicates that the combination of Massiglia
and Khosrowpour teaches the required elements for the front-end
controller by modifying Massiglia’s front-end controller, with the teachings
of Khosrowpour, to also include the functionality of mirroring, based on the
controller taught by Khosrowpour which performs mirroring and striping.
(emphasis original)
We disagree with the appellants and find that the rejection does set forth
proper motivation to combine the references, however, we agree with the
appellants and find that the combination of the references do not teach the
functionality of the front-end controller and back-end controllers as is claimed.
Claim 1 includes the limitations of a “a front-end controller coupled to the
second plurality of back-end controllers for generating mirror sets from at least
Appeal No. 2004-1190
Application No. 09/286,160
6
one of the disks in a third plurality of redundant arrays of disks received from the
second plurality of back-end controllers, striping at least one of the disks in the
third plurality of redundant arrays of disks and presenting the striped arrays as a
virtual volume.” Thus, we consider the scope of claim 1 to include that there is a
front-end controller, which performs both functions of striping and generating a
mirror, and that there are more than one back-end controller connected to the
front-end controller. Independent claims 8, 13, 14 and 18 contain similar
limitations. Independent claim 6 includes a similar limitation in that it claims a
striping engine for striping and generating mirror sets from the disks associated
with the back-end controllers.
We find that Massiglia teaches a RAID system where an array of disks is
organized such that it is striped and mirrored. See figure 74, page 153.
Massiglia teaches that a “Striping Array Management Function” performs the
striping and a “Mirroring Array Management Function” performs the mirroring. In
figure 74 one Striping Array Management Function receives data from two or
more Mirroring Array Management Functions. Massiglia states on page 10 that
“[a] disk array’s Array Management Function may execute either in the disk
system or in the host computer(s).” Further, on page 156, Massiglia states
“[o]ften, it is possible to use host-based striping to combine virtual disks
presented by controller-based mirrored arrays into an array. Some vendors offer
both striping and mirroring capability within their disk systems. Finally, some
system vendors offer host-based software packages for both striping and
Appeal No. 2004-1190
Application No. 09/286,160
7
mirroring.” Thus, we find that Massiglia contemplates that the striping and
mirroring can be performed by different devices (a host and controller), or they
can be performed by the same device (either a host or the disk system).
However, we do not find that Massiglia teaches the use of a front-end controller
which performs both striping and generating a mirror, with more than one back-
end controller connected to the front-end controller. That is, we do not find that
Massiglia teaches that when one device performs both striping and mirroring, a
plurality of back end controllers are also used.
We find that Khosrowpour teaches a redundant system that makes use of
two RAID controllers. The second RAID controller is used if the first RAID
controller fails. See column 1, lines 38-51. Khosrowpour also teaches that the
RAID controllers perform both striping and mirroring. See column 5, lines 30-35.
We find that the stated purpose of Khosrowpour, to improve reliability by
providing redundant controllers, provides motivation to modify Massiglia to use
redundant controllers. However, we do not find that the use of redundant
controllers in Massiglia meets the claimed front-end controller, which performs
both striping and generating a mirror, and which is connected to more than one
back-end controllers. Thus, we do not find that the combination of the references
teaches all of the limitations of the independent claims. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 8, 11 through 16 and 18
through 20.
Appeal No. 2004-1190
Application No. 09/286,160
8
The examiner has rejected claims 3 and 17 over Massiglia in view of
Khosrowpour and Griffith, and claim 10 over Massiglia, Khosrowpour, Bergsten
and Pinson. The examiner has not asserted, nor do we find, that Griffith,
Bergsten or Pinson teach or suggest the claimed front-end controller which
performs both striping and generating a mirror, and which is connected to more
then one back-end controller. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 3, 10 and 17 for the reasons stated above.
In view of the forgoing, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 8 and 10 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The decision of
the examiner is reversed.
Reversed
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ALLEN R. MACDONALD ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT E. NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
RN/RWK
Appeal No. 2004-1190
Application No. 09/286,160
9
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
ONE TABOR CENTER, SUITE 15001
1200 SEVENTEETH ST
DENVER, CO 80202