Ex Parte Corn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2013

11424593 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VANCE E. CORN, JOHN DODSON,
WILLIAM C. EDWARDS III, and SCOTT A. LENHARTH
____________

Appeal 2010-007099
Application 11/424,593
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and JEREMY J.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 3-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention manages disk storage by previewing a disk
drive’s metadata before importing or clearing to make it available on a
receiving system, namely a redundant array of independent disks (RAID).
See generally Abstract; Spec. 4-5. Claim 1 is illustrative:

Appeal 2010-007099
Application 11/424,593

2
1. An information handling system, comprising:

a processor operable to process data; and

storage media operable to store data for processing by said processor,
said storage media comprising a plurality of storage disks configured in a
RAID array, said storage disks comprising at least one foreign configuration
object and associated foreign data;

wherein said processor is operable to detect configuration information
corresponding to said foreign configuration object and to selectively process
said associated foreign data based on said configuration information and
wherein said configuration information is used to generate a configuration
preview for a user.

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Islam (US 5,950,230; Sept. 7, 1999). Ans. 3-6.1
2. The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Islam and Bill Dawkins, Dell Leads RAID Format
Standards Effort (2005). Ans. 7.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
The Examiner finds that Islam discloses every recited feature of
representative claim 1 including storage disks comprising at least one
“foreign configuration object” associated with an unidentified drive and
associated foreign data, where a processor is operable to (1) detect
configuration information corresponding to the foreign configuration object,
and (2) selectively process the associated foreign data based on the

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed November 9,
2009 (“Br.”) and the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 25, 2010 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2010-007099
Application 11/424,593

3
configuration information. Ans. 4-5, 8-14. According to the Examiner, the
configuration information is used to generate a “configuration preview” that
is said to correspond to displaying unidentified drive configurations that the
user may accept by pressing the F7 key. Ans. 14.
Appellants argue that Islam’s configuration information pertains to its
native or non-foreign RAID configuration, and is not equivalent that of the
claimed invention which is used to import a foreign disk into a receiving
RAID array. Br. 3-6. Appellants add that Islam’s configuration information
does not generate a configuration preview as claimed. Br. 6-7.

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Islam discloses storage disks comprising at least one foreign
configuration object and associated foreign data, where a processor is
operable to (1) detect configuration information corresponding to the foreign
configuration object, and (2) selectively process the associated foreign data
based on the configuration information, and where the configuration
information is used to generate a configuration preview for a user?

ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
for the reasons indicated by the Examiner. Ans. 4-5, 8-14. Despite
Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (Br. 3-6), nothing in claim 1 precludes
the Examiner’s interpreting the recited “foreign configuration object” and
associated foreign data as corresponding to that associated with an
unidentified drive in Islam, for this unidentified drive’s former configuration
Appeal 2010-007099
Application 11/424,593

4
is “foreign” at least with respect to the drive’s newer location and
configuration. See Ans. 9-14; Islam, col. 10, l. 54 – col. 11, l. 5; Fig. 3
(steps 310-312). Even assuming, without deciding, that Islam’s
configuration information is limited to its native RAID configuration as
Appellants contend (Br. 3-7), Appellants have pointed to no definition of
“foreign” in their Specification that would limit the term to preclude the
Examiner’s interpretation. Accord Ans. 8, 14 (noting the breadth of the
recited terms). To be sure, the Specification indicates that in various
embodiments of the present invention, a “disk is examined to detect foreign
configurations, generally defined as comprising a disk group that shares a set
of virtual disks or hotspares.” Spec. 9:17-22; 4:12-17. The Specification
further notes that if a drive is moved to a different controller, its associated
metadata is considered to be “foreign.” Spec. 3:18-20. But Appellants have
not persuasively shown how these descriptions limit the recited term
“foreign” to preclude the Examiner’s interpretation.
Nor have Appellants persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s finding that
displaying the new unidentified drive configuration information to the user
for importing via the F7 key generates a configuration preview as claimed.
Ans. 14 (citing Islam col. 10, l. 54 – col. 11, l. 2; Fig. 3 (steps 311-312).
Appellants’ arguments regarding Islam’s configuration information
pertaining to non-foreign disk drives in a single RAID system (Br. 6-7) are
unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2-14 and 16-20 not separately argued with
particularity.
Appeal 2010-007099
Application 11/424,593

5
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Since Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15
(see Br. 3-7; Ans. 7), we summarily sustain this rejection. See MPEP
§ 1205.02 (“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed
in the appellant’s brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained
by the Board.”).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 1, 3-14, and 16-20
under § 102, and (2) claim 15 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-20 is affirmed.
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

rwk