Ex Parte Cox et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 15, 2013

11397025 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2013)

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.
11/397,025 03/31/2006 Gary H. Cox EMS-108US2 3300
52427 7590 10/16/2013
MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC
200 FRIBERG PARKWAY, SUITE 1001
WESTBOROUGH, MA 01581
EXAMINER
MCCARTHY, CHRISTOPHER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2113
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/16/2013 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 GARY H. COX, BRETT A. QUINN,
and DOUGLAS E. LECRONE
____________

Appeal 2011-001893
Application 11/397,025
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 3-7, 10-14, and 21-32. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 15-20 have been cancelled. We
AFFIRM.

Appeal 2011-001893
Application 11/397,025

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to transferring data between storage
devices. Spec. p. 1, ll. 5-6.
Claim 21 is illustrative:
21. A method of handling failure of a primary group at a
first data center that is part of plurality of data centers providing
triangular asynchronous replication, the method comprising:
creating a data mirroring relationship between at least
one storage volume at a second data center having a
synchronous backup group that is part of the plurality of data
centers and at least one storage volume at a third data center
having an asynchronous backup group that is part of the
plurality of data centers, wherein data writes to a local storage
volume at the primary group begun after a first time and before
a second time are associated with a first chunk of data and data
writes to the local storage volume at the primary group begun
after the second time are associated with a second chunk of data
and wherein the at least one storage volume at the third data
center stores data from the first chunk in response to receipt of a
message from the primary group indicating that all data from
the first chunk has been transmitted to the third data center;
maintaining failure recovery data that indicates data of
the first and second chunks of data that has not yet been
completely transferred to the third data center;
synchronizing the second and third data centers, wherein
the failure recovery data indicates whether to synchronize the
second and third data centers by providing initial data from the
second data center to the third data center or by providing initial
data from the third data center to the second data center; and
after synchronizing the second and third data centers,
resuming work at one of: the second data center and the third
data center.

Appeal 2011-001893
Application 11/397,025

3
EVIDENCE CONSIDERED
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Suzuki U.S. 2006/0047664 A1 Mar. 2, 2006
Meiri U.S. 2004/0193820 A1 Sept. 30, 2004
Nakamura EP 1 283 469 A2 Dec. 2, 2003

REJECTIONS
Claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 21-27, 29, 30, and 32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suzuki and Meiri. Ans. 3-9.
Claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 28, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Meiri, and Nakamura. Ans. 3,
9-12.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Suzuki teaches “failure recovery
data,” as recited in independent claim 21, and similarly recited in
independent claim 24?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action and the Reply Brief presented in response to the Examiner’s Answer.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Suzuki is very
different from Appellants’ recited feature of synchronizing the second and
third data centers “using the newest data between them” based on the failure
Appeal 2011-001893
Application 11/397,025

4
recovery data. App. Br. 13. Appellants’ argument is not commensurate
with the scope of the claim 21. Claim 21 recites “the failure recovery data
indicates whether to synchronize the second and the third data centers by
providing initial data from the second data center to the third data center or
by providing initial data from the third data center to the second data
center.” We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the disputed limitation
would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings
of Suzuki (Ans. 4-5 (citing Suzuki ¶¶ 280, 290, 293: Figs. 23, 25); Ans. 12-
13 (citing Suzuki ¶ 293)).
Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 21 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and
dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 22, 23, 25-27, 29, 30, and 32, not
separately argued (App. Br. 10, 15). Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 21-27, 29, 30, and 32 as
being unpatentable over Suzuki and Meiri.
With respect to claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 28, and 31, Appellants argue that
Nakamura does not overcome the deficiencies of Suzuki and Meiri (App. Br.
14). For the reasons discussed supra, Appellants have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 28, and 31.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 6, 10,
13, 28, and 31 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Meiri, and Nakamura.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-7, 10-14, and 21-32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2011-001893
Application 11/397,025

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc