Ex Parte Cherian et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 5, 2016

13746893 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2016)

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.
13/746,893 01/22/2013 Jacob Cherian 102450.00047 5174
108431 7590 12/06/2016
Dell e/n Taeksinn Walker T T P
EXAMINER
100 Congress Avenue
Suite 1100
STEVENS, ROBERT
Austin, TX 78701 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2016 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 JACOB CHERIAN and GAURAV CHAWLA
Appeal 2015-007374
Application 13/746,893
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-007374
Application 13/746,893
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1. A method comprising:
extracting identities of one or more hosts from a storage
resource-to-host mapping database associated with a storage
resource; and
for each of the one or more hosts:
computing a discovery domain unique identifier
based on a host unique identifier;
determining if the discovery domain unique
identifier is present in a discovery domain database
associated with the storage resource; and
adding a storage resource unique identifier of the
storage resource to an entry of the discovery domain
database associated with the storage resource.
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 5—7, 10, 11, 14—17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cherian and Mizuno.
Representative Claim
Prior Art
Mizuno US 2006/0036818 A1
Haynes, Jr. US 2007/0156974 A1
Cherian US 2011/0093576 A1
Feb. 16, 2006
July 5, 2007
Apr. 21,2011
2
Appeal 2015-007374
Application 13/746,893
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cherian, Mizuno, and Haynes, Jr.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the
Examiner’s Answer. We address the following points for emphasis.
Appellants contend that Cherian fails to teach “for each of the one or
more hosts: computing a discovery domain unique identifier based on a host
unique identifier” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 4—9; Reply Br. 2—3.
According to Appellants, Table 1 of Cherian shows an association between a
discovery domain, host bus adapters, and storage devices, but does not show
that the label for the discovery domain is a unique identifier derived from
that of the host. Reply Br. 2—3. However, claim 1 does not recite the
discovery domain label is derived from that of the host. Appellants’
contention is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Appellants’ Specification discloses a non-limiting example of
“computing a discovery domain unique identifier based on a host unique
identifier” as:
based on a unique identifier x for a host 102 (e.g., an iSCSI
Qualified Name), federation module 208 may compute a
function z = G(x) where z is a unique identifier (e.g.,
alphabetical, numeric, or alphanumeric) for a given discovery
domain in a discovery domain database 214 of a storage
resource 114. The function G(x) may be a modulo hash
function, assuring that for any value of x, a unique value of z
will be calculated.
3
Appeal 2015-007374
Application 13/746,893
Spec. 14,11. 18—25. Although this example discloses computing the domain
identifier as a modulo hash function of the host identifier, claim 1 is not so
limited. Rather, claim 1 recites “computing a discovery domain unique
identifier based on a host unique identifier.” The scope of this limitation,
when read in light of Appellants’ Specification, encompasses creating a
discovery domain and its identifier based on an identified host.
Paragraph 22 of Cherian teaches that:
When host 210 is connected to iSCSI fabric 230, iSNS client
212 discovers iSNS server 220 that in turn registers the
presence of host 210 by adding host 210 to default domain 222.
When the administrator uses management station 250 to
configure storage system 240 to provide access to host 210, DD
[discovery domain] 224 is created . . . and configured to include
host 210 and storage system 240.
Thus, Cherian teaches creating a discovery domain 224 based on identified
host 210 in need of access to a storage system. We agree with the Examiner
that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that the newly created
discovery domain has a corresponding “unique identifier” as shown for
example in Table 1 of Cherian. See Ans. 4—5.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2-4, which fall
with claim 1. Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claims
5—20 similar to those presented for claim 1 which we find unpersuasive. See
App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 are affirmed.
4
Appeal 2015-007374
Application 13/746,893
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(f).
AFFIRMED
5