Ex Parte Garza et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2016

13848076 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/848,076 03/21/2013
48916 7590
Greg Goshorn, P.C.
9600 Escarpment Blvd.
Suite 745-9
AUSTIN, TX 78749
07113/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Maria D. Garza
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.
AUS920110181 US2 9374
EXAMINER
MUNDUR, P ADMA V ATHI V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2016 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 MARIA D. GARZA,
KRISHNAKUMAR R. JINKA,
GREG R. MEWHINNEY,
and JAMES A. PAFUMI
Appeal2015-004724
Application 13/848,076
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR,
and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-8, 2 which are all the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation (App. Br. 3).
2 Claims 9-25 are under separate appeal 2015-001444, for copending
application 13/275,638.
Appeal2015-004724
Application 13/848,076
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to an apparatus for providing an
automated user interface on a storage virtualizer so as to activate a
worldwide unique identifier (WWPN), corresponding to a virtual
input/output client that wishes to login to a storage area network (SAN), to a
storage allocation within the SAN (Spec. 1 ). Claims 1 and 2 are illustrative
of the invention and read as follows (the disputed limitations are italicized).
1. A method, comprising:
providing a user interface on a storage virtualizer, the
user interface configured to enable a worldwide unique
identifier (WWPN) to be selectively activated on a storage area
network (SAN); and
[L 1] setting up a zoning for the WWPN on the SAN prior to
creation and without an existing association between the
WWPN and the virtual 110 client of a virtual 110 client that
utilizes the T,VTff Pl·! and ivithout a requirement that the T17Tff Pl·!
be manually entered.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising
[L2] logging the storage virtualizer off WWPN on the SAN prior to
the virtual 110 client logging into the SAN to utilize the WWPN.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting over claims 9-13 of copending Application No.
13/275,638.3 Final Act. 8-9.
3 We proforma affirm the double patenting rejections, which were not
contested by Appellants.
2
Appeal2015-004724
Application 13/848,076
Claims 1, 3, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bull (Bull SAS, Virtual 110 Server, Hardware Manual,
Reference 86 Al 81FA 01(May2009)) in view of Otani (US 2010/0100878
Al, Apr. 22, 2010). Final Act. 2, 9-12.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bull in view of Otani, and further in view of Zhao (US
6,035,404, Mar. 7, 2000). Final Act. 2, 12-14.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bull in view of Otani and further in view of Barker (IBM Training
Slides, Session Title: Implementing Live Mobility with Virtual Fibre
Channel (Sept. 2009)), and further in view of Zhao. Final Act. 2, 14--15.
Appellants' Contentions
Appellants contend the following:
(1) Claim 1 requires that zoning be set up for the WWPN on the SAN
prior to creation of the virtual I/O client, whereas Otani teaches that the
WWPN is created and associated with the new virtual client prior to
communication with the SAN. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-3.
(2) Claim 2 requires that the storage virtualizer be logged off in
response to a virtual I/O client logging into the SAN, whereas Zhao teaches
logging off a concurrent user in response instead of the storage virtualizer.
The first and second clients of Zhao are not analogous to the claimed
"storage virtualizer" and "I/O client." App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3.
3
Appeal2015-004724
Application 13/848,076
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments under contentions (1 }-(2) that the Examiner has erred (App. Br.
6-8; Reply Br. 2-3).
We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. We adopt as our own (i.)
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken and (ii.) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-7) in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relied on Bull as disclosing
providing a user interface on a storage virtualizer, the user interface
configured to enable a WWPN to be selectively activated on a SAN. Final
Act. 9. The Examiner further relied on Otani as teaching setting up a zoning
for the WWPN on the SAN prior to creation and without an existing
association between the WWPN and the virtual I/O client and without a
requirement that the WWPN be manually entered. Final Act. 10-11. In
rejecting claim 2, the Examiner further relied on Zhao as teaching logging
the storage virtualizer off WWPN on the SAN in response to the virtual I/O
client logging into the SAN to utilize the WWPN. Final Act. 12-13.
Rejection of Claims 1, 3, and 5--8 under§ 103
We select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims comprising
claims 1, 3, and 5-8 as Appellants have not argued any of the other claims in
this group with particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2015-004724
Application 13/848,076
Issue 1: Under § 103, did the Examiner err by finding that Bull and
Otani collectively would have taught or suggested:
[L 1] setting up a zoning for the WWPN on the SAN prior to
creation and without an existing association between the
WWPN and the virtual IIO client of a virtual IIO client that
utilizes the WWPN and without a requirement that the WWPN
be manually entered
within the meaning of representative claim 1? (Emphasis added).
At the outset, regarding limitation [LI], Appellants note that the
Examiner finds Otani teaches setting up a zoning for the WWPN on the
SAN prior to creation of a virtual I/O client (see Ans. 2-3 (citing Otani
i-fi-121, 55, and 59)). Appellants, argue, however, that the creation of the
virtual I/O client is irrelevant since the virtual I/O client is created before the
zoning of the WWPN as seen from Figure 10 of Otani (Reply Br. 2-3).
We note that Appellants treat the term "creation ... of a virtual I/O
client" as equivalent to the term "creates nev,r \V\VPN for the new Vl\1 at
first", referenced in paragraphs 21, 55, and 58 as well as Figures 10 and 13
of Otani. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-3. However, the Examiner has
considered "Assign WWPN to new VM" to correspond to the act of
creation, which following Figures 10 and 13 of Otani takes place after the
setting up of zoning of the WWPN. Ans. 2--4. The Examiner specifically
finds that "there is clearly no existing association between the WWPN and
that VM at an earlier time of SAN zoning setup" (Id. at 5), while noting that
a new virtual WWPN for the new VM is set up at first and the new VM is
subsequently created after the WWPN is provided to the storage
management server from the storage subsystem (Id. at 4; see Otani i121 ).
5
Appeal2015-004724
Application 13/848,076
Appellants do not define the term "creation" that would preclude the
Examiner's interpretation of "setting up a zoning for the WWPN on the
SAN prior to creation ... of a virtual I/O client that utilizes the WWPN" to
encompass Otani's sequence outlined by "Create new WWPM" followed by
"Zoning Setting" and subsequently followed by "Assign WWPN to new
VM" as shown in Figures 10 and 13 and recited in paragraph 21. Ans. 4--5.
The Examiner points out that paragraphs 27-30 of Appellants' Specification
also describe a similar process wherein the system administrator would need
to touch the host (or client) side only once as the final step when the VM is
created and WWPN assigned to it. Ans. 5; see Specification i-f 19.
Therefore, on this record, in light of Appellants' Specification, and by a
preponderance of the evidence, we are not persuaded the Examiner's
interpretation of limitation [L 1] is overly broad or unreasonable, or that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Bull and Otani teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
Rejection of Claims 2 and 4 under§ 103
We select claim 2 as representative of the group of claims comprising
claims 2 and 4 as Appellants have not argued any of the other claims in this
group with particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Issue 2: Under§ 103, did the Examiner err by finding that Bull, Otani
and Zhao collectively would have taught or suggested:
[L2] logging the storage virtualizer off WWPN on the SAN
prior to the virtual 110 client logging into the SAN to utilize the
WWPN;
6
Appeal2015-004724
Application 13/848,076
within the meaning of representative claim 2? (Emphasis added).
With respect to limitation [L2], Appellants argue that the "Login
Manager" of Zhao may be equivalent to Appellants' "storage virtualizer,"
and that the Login Manager continues to execute regardless of any particular
limitation on concurrent users (Reply Br. 3). Therefore, Appellants argue
Zhao may not be used to teach that the administrator is logged out when the
client logs in. Id.
However, Appellants have not explained why Otani does not teach or
suggest "logging the storage virtualizer off WWPN on the SAN prior to the
virtual I/O client logging into the SAN to utilize the WWPN." The
Examiner points out, "In SAN environments, it is well known that both the
administrator and the client cannot be logged in at the same time," and cites
paragraphs 6-12 of Otani to demonstrate that the SAN administrator and the
I/O client may not be both logged in at the same time to avoid conflict. Ans.
7. The Examiner states that Zhao was merely used to teach the process of a
forced log off, while Otani sets the context for the roles played by the SAN
administrator and the client. Id.
The Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the combination-"the login is restricted to a single
user to enforce access rights" (Id.) -and we are not persuaded that the
teachings of Otani and Zhao are limited to Appellants' proposed separation
of roles. Each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in
isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a
whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when
7
Appeal2015-004724
Application 13/848,076
the rejection is based on a combination of references. Jn re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
by improperly combining the cited references under § 103 in the rejection of
limitation [L2].
CONCLUSION
As discussed herein, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1 and 2, as well as the remaining claims 3-8, which are
not argued separately or based on reasoning different from those discussed
above (see App. Br. 7-9).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8