Ex Parte Fox et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 201613246028 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/246,028 09/27/2011 37945 7590 05/27/2016 DUKEW. YEE YEE AND AS SOCIA TES, P.C. P.O. BOX 802333 DALLAS, TX 75380 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Michael J. Fox 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. A US920 l 10266US 1 2297 EXAMINER NAOREEN, NAZIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2458 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/27/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com mgamez@yeeiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL J. FOX, CONSTANTINOS KASSIMIS, DONALD W. SCHMIDT, and JERRY W. STEVENS Appeal2014-009460 Application 13/246,028 Technology Center 2400 Before HUNG H. BUI, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-009460 Application 13/246,028 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 9, 12-17, and 20-24, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION The application is directed to a system that "establishes a transport layer connection between a first system and a second system" where "establishment of the transport layer connection includes identifying a remote direct memory access (RDMA) connection between the first system and the second system." (Abstract.) Claim 9, reproduced below, is illustrative: 9. A system, which comprises: a protocol stack configured to establish first technology con- nection with a second system, said establishment of said first technology connection identifying a second technology connec- tion between said system and said second system, wherein said first technology connection comprises a transport layer connec- tion and said second technology connection comprises a remote direct memory access (RDMA) connection, wherein said proto- col stack is configured to exchange RDMA connection identifi- cation parameters with said second system during a transport layer setup process between said system and said second system; and, 1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in interest. (See App. Br. 2.) 2 Appeal2014-009460 Application 13/246,028 code stored in memory that when executed sends data be- tween said system and said second system using said identified second technology connection. THE REFERENCE AND THE REJECTION Claims 9, 12-17, and 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pandya (US 7,376,755 B2, issued May 20, 2008). (See Final Act. 2-11.) APPELLANTS' CONTENTION Appellants argue that the rejections are improper because Pandya "does not disclose the claim 9 feature of, 'a protocol stack configured to establish first technology connection with a second system, said establishment of said first technology connection identifying a second technology connection between said system and said second system, wherein said first technology connection comprises a transport layer connection and said second technology connection comprises a remote direct memory access (RDMA) connection, wherein said protocol stack is configured to exchange RDMA connection identification parameters with said second system during a transport layer setup process between said system and said second system."' (App. Br. 7-8.) 3 Appeal2014-009460 Application 13/246,028 ANALYSIS Pandya's Figure 47 "illustrates the major steps of session creation flow," where the "session" is a TCP/IP connection established using the conventional SYN/SYN-ACK/ACK handshake, as described in steps 1-13 at columns 37-38. (See Pandya 37:52-38:25.) Although this is a "transport layer setup process," the enumerated steps do not include an "exchange [of] RDMA connection identification parameters," as claimed.2 In an effort to fill that gap, the Examiner cites this paragraph that follows the list of steps: Prior to getting the session in the established state as in step 13, the control plane processor may be required to perform a full login phase of the storage protocol, exchanging parameters and recording them for the specific connection if this is a storage data transfer connection. Once the login is authenticated and param- eter exchange complete, does the session enter the session estab- lishment state shown in step 13 above. (Pandya 38:26-33.) Evidently, the Examiner interprets the phrase "perform a full login phase of the storage protocol, exchanging parameters and recording them for the specific connection if this is a storage data transfer connection" to mean that RDMA connection identification parameters are exchanged. We cannot agree with the Examiner's interpretation. Because the reference uses the term "storage protocol" only to refer to conventional 2 Cf Spec. i-f 7 ("The SYN message includes options identifying an RDMA over converged Ethernet (RoCE) address for the first system .... The SYN- ACK message includes options identifying a RoCE address, a queue pair (QP) number, a remote memory buffer (RMB) key, and RMB indexing information for the second system .... The ACK message includes options identifying a QP number, an RMB key, and RMB indexing information for the first system."). 4 Appeal2014-009460 Application 13/246,028 storage protocols such as SCSI, iSCSI, iFCP, and FCIP (see, e.g., Pandya 8:38--43; 9:20-10: 18), we find no basis for interpreting "perform a full login phase of the storage protocol, exchanging parameters and recording them for the specific connection" to include an exchange of RDMA connection identification parameters. Pandya does not use the term "storage protocol" to refer to RDMA. We conclude that the reference does not explicitly or inherently teach "exchang[ing] RDMA connection identification parameters ... during a transport layer setup process." As that limitation is required by every claim, we decline to sustain the anticipation rejections. DECISION The rejection of claims 9, 12-17, and 20-24 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation