Ex Parte Dohm

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2013

11046350 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte KARL DOHM
____________________

Appeal 2011-000533
Application 11/046,350
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000533
Application 11/046,350
2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
11 and 13-40.2 Claim 12 was cancelled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
The claims are directed to storage replication system with data
tracking. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A storage replication method comprising:
configuring a storage system in a hub-and-spoke
arrangement with a hub source and a plurality of spoke
destinations;
replicating data from the source among the plurality of
destinations;
tracking data modifications in the plurality of
destinations;
mutually communicating the tracked data modifications
among the plurality of destinations;
determining differences in data content among ones of
the plurality of destinations; and
in a source failover condition, assigning a selected
destination as a new source based on the differences in data
content among ones of the plurality of destinations, and
reforming data in remaining destinations into synchrony
with the new source, the new source and remaining destinations
being configured in a new hub-and-spoke arrangement with the
new hub source and the remaining plurality of spoke
destinations, the reforming being limited to data that differs
from the new source.

1 Throughout the decision, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed May 13, 2010), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sep. 27,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jul. 28, 2010).
2 The Real Party in Interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP.
Appeal 2011-000533
Application 11/046,350
3

Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-11 and 13-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as
being anticipated by Lubbers (US 2003/0188233 A1, Oct. 2, 2003). Ans. 4-
21.
Appellants argue claims 1 and 35 as representative of independent
claims 1, 11, 20, 32, 33, 35 and 38 and their respective dependent claims 2-
10,13-19, 21-31, 34, 36-37, 39 and 40. See App. Br. 10, 12, 13. Therefore,
we select claims 1 and 35 as representative.
OPINION
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Lubbers discloses “a
storage system in a hub-and-spoke arrangement with a hub source and a
plurality of spoke destinations” as recited in independent claim 1?
Appellant contends that Lubbers fails to disclose “a storage system in
a hub-and-spoke arrangement with a hub source and a plurality of spoke
destinations” as recited in independent claims 1, 32, 33 and 35. App. Br. 10.
Similar limitations for a “hub-and-spoke fanout arrangement” (or
configuration) are found in independent claims 11 and 38. Id. Appellant
asserts that Lubbers is only “directed to storage data replication at different
sites” in a “host clustered file system,” not a hub-and-spoke arrangement as
claimed. Id. (citing Lubbers, ¶ [0026], Fig. 1). Specifically, Appellant
argues that “Lubbers does not configure its system with a dedicated source
hub and dedicated ‘n’ destinations, as claimed.” Id.; Reply Br. 1-2.
Appellant further contends that Lubbers fails to disclose a “dedicated hub or
source” with “dedicated destinations,” and instead discloses a hub source
Appeal 2011-000533
Application 11/046,350
4
whose roles are flexibly assigned to the locations without dedication. App.
Br. 10-11 (citing Lubbers, ¶¶ [0025] [0032]-[0034], [0041], [0042] and
[0054]); Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner responds that Figure 1 of Lubbers shows a hub and
spoke arrangement where a network connects the source to each destination
in a “server/hub/monitor/source connected to various clients/destinations in
a network environment.” Ans. 22. Arguing that “dedicated” is not a claim
limitation, the Examiner also found that Figure 5 shows a hub and spoke
arrangement with source 501 connected via spokes to destinations 504 and
502. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
erred. First, we note in the Appellant’s arguments that the claims require a
“dedicated source or hub” are not commensurate in scope with the claims
that do not limit the term “hub-and-spoke.” See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982). We find that the broadest reasonable construction of
hub-and-spoke encompasses a configuration of connections that are flexibly
changeable. Appellant’s admission that Lubbers “ ‘source’ and ‘destination’
roles are flexibly assigned to the locations and change operationally in its
existing system” undermines his argument that Lubbers does not disclose a
hub and spoke configuration App. Br. 10 (citing Lubbers, ¶¶ [0025],
[0054], and [0059]). We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Lubbers
discloses flexible arrangements that include a 1:n arrangement shown in
Figure 5 that reads on the claimed spoke-and-hub arrangement. See Ans. 22
(citing Lubbers, Fig. 5, ¶ [0034]).
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner did not err in
finding that Lubbers discloses “a storage system in a hub-and-spoke
Appeal 2011-000533
Application 11/046,350
5
arrangement with a hub source and a plurality of spoke destinations” as
recited in independent claims 1, 32, 33, and 35.

Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Lubbers discloses a
“source failover” and “reforming being limited to data that differs from the
new source” as recited in claim 1?
Appellant argues that Lubbers does not disclose “in a source failover
condition, assigning a selected destination as a new source based on the
differences in data content among ones of the plurality of destinations” as
recited in claim 1 and other independent claims. App. Br. 11. Specifically,
Appellant also asserts that Lubbers, which determines which destination
controller takes over as the source during an event failover operation, is a
site failover and is not the same as source failover as claimed. Id. (citing
Lubbers ¶ [0091] and [0094]). With respect to the reforming being limited
to different data limitation, Appellant admits that Lubbers discloses copying
a small amount of data from the new source to destinations, but argues that
this does not read on the claim limitation for “reforming being limited to
data that differs from the new source.” App. Br. 12-13.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that Lubbers only
discloses “site failover” conditions based on source controllers that differs
from Appellant’s claimed site failover. We agree with the Examiner’s
findings that Lubbers discloses a system for detecting communication failure
between source and multiple destinations and instructions for executing a
failover process where a destination controller becomes a source controller.
Ans. 23 (citing Lubbers ¶ [0014]). As the Examiner also found, Lubbers
expressly defines “site failover” as being “used in the lexicon of disaster
tolerant storage systems to describe operations executed by the storage
Appeal 2011-000533
Application 11/046,350
6
network that permit the network to remain operational to a user in the event
of a failure or unplanned downtime of a primary storage site.” Lubbers ¶
[0010]. Contrary to Appellant’s argument (Reply Br. 3), we do not find that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Lubbers’s disclosure
of site failover to be limited to the context of copy sets and reservations. See
Lubbers ¶ [0010]. Instead, we are in agreement with the Examiner that
Lubbers discloses that a site is a source for purposes of failovers. See Ans.
23.
Finally, we also agree with the Examiner that Lubbers discloses
several methodologies for assigning a new source, including determining “if
the data associated with the destination controllers is more current tha[n] the
data associated with other destination controllers.” Ans. 23-24 (citing
Lubbers ¶ [0015]). In other words, we find that Lubbers discloses a failover
scenario where only data that differs from the new source (a limited amount
of data) is copied to destinations.
Based on the foregoing, the Examiner did not err in finding that
Lubbers discloses a “source failover” and “reforming being limited to data
that differs from the new source” as recited in claim 1.

Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Lubbers discloses
“terminating processing of buffered writes pending from a previous
replication write stream” as recited in claim 35.
Appellant contends that Lubbers fails to disclose “terminating
processing of buffered writes pending from a previous replication write
stream” because Lubbers merely “mentions that a delay may occur in
copying of data from the source to destination, but is devoid of the feature of
terminating processing of buffered writes pending from a previous
Appeal 2011-000533
Application 11/046,350
7
replication write stream.” App. Br. 13 (citing Lubbers, ¶ [0060]); See Reply
Br. 4.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Lubbers discloses that
pending write processes are stopped and stored in a data log when
connection errors occur. Lubbers ¶ [0012]. We agree with the Examiner
that Lubbers discloses ending write processes and later completing them
using the data log. See Ans. 18 (citing Lubbers, ¶¶ [0012], [0060]).
Accordingly, we find that Lubbers discloses “terminating processing of
buffered writes pending from a previous replication write stream” as recited
in claim 35.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing we find that the Examiner did not err in
finding that Lubbers discloses the limitations discussed above of
independent claims 1, 11, 20, 32, 33, 35 and 38, or their respective
dependent claims 2-10, 13-19, 21-31, 34, 36-37, 39 and 40. We sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-40 under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as
being anticipated by Lubbers.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 and
13-40 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

Appeal 2011-000533
Application 11/046,350
8
tj