Ex Parte Gopisetty et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 26, 2010

10676698 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Feb. 26, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SANDEEP K. GOPISETTY, SUMANT PADBIDRI,
PRASENJIT SARKAR, CHUNG-HAO TAN,
and KALADHAR VORUGANTI
____________

Appeal 2009-004219
Application 10/676,698
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: March 1, 2010
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and CAROLYN
D. THOMAS, 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 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2009-004219
Application 10/676,698

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants invented a storage area network (SAN) management
system and method of providing a SAN topology. See generally Spec. 1 and
3.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A storage area network (SAN) management system to
generate perspectives of a SAN topology, the SAN
management system including:

a SAN manager program to monitor a storage area network
(SAN), said SAN manager program capable of generating an
adjacency matrix, and said SAN manager program capable of
facilitating direct data transfers between storage devices
without server intervention;

a SAN management database linked with the SAN manager
program, wherein the SAN management database maintains
information identifying devices included within the SAN and
connections between the devices;

a plurality of sensor agents positioned within devices
included within the SAN, wherein the sensor agents gather
information associated with events occurring within the SAN
and provide the gathered information to the SAN manager for
inclusion within the SAN management database; and

a topology viewer linked to the SAN manager to generate a
user requested topology perspective according to data included
within the SAN management database and data associated with
a previously requested topology perspective.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Battat US 5,958,012 Sep. 28, 1999
2
Appeal 2009-004219
Application 10/676,698

Drew Bird, Storage Basics: Storage Area Networks, Feb. 26, 2002,
http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/sans/features/article.php/981191
(hereafter “Bird”).

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Battat and Bird.1 Ans. 4-9.2

CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants’ arguments (Br. 6-8), we treat the independent
claims separately.

Claims 1-14
Claim 1 recites a SAN manager program capable of generating an
adjacency matrix. The Examiner finds that Figure 17 in Battat, graphically
showing nodes of a network adjacent to one another, discloses the SAN
manager program capable of generating an adjacency matrix. Ans. 4.
Appellants contend that the term “adjacency matrix” recited in
independent claims 1, 9, and 14 has a specific meaning related to matrix
algebra as explained in the disclosure. Br. 7. Appellants argue Battat does
not discuss an adjacency matrix and that Figure 17 does not show generating
an adjacency matrix. Br. 8.
The issue before us, then, is as follows:

1 While the rejection’s heading does not include Bird, the body of the
rejection discusses Bird. See Ans. 4. We therefore presume that the
Examiner intended to include Bird in this rejection.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 7,
2007 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 15, 2008.
3
Appeal 2009-004219
Application 10/676,698

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Battat and Bird collectively would have taught or suggested a SAN
manager program capable of generating an adjacency matrix?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
Appellants’ Disclosure
1. The Specification describes a topology viewer 91 that compares
adjacent nodes related to an input node with an adjacency matrix shown in
Table 1. Spec. 17-18.
2. The Specification states the adjacency matrix provided in Table 1
as where:
(Let G = (V, E) be a graph, where V is indexed by {1, 2, …, n}.
The n x n adjacency matrix of G is defined by A[v,w] = {1 if
{v,w} belongs to E, 0 otherwise) data structure (An Adjacency
List is an array Adj[1…n] of pointer, where Adj[u] points to a
linked list containing the vertices u such that {u,v} (undirected)
or (u,v) (directed) is an edge. A directed graph G is represented
by an adjacency matrix X such that [a]n entry Xp,q = 1 if and
only if there is an edge from p to q. Otherwise Xp,q = 0) that
corresponds to the SAN topology 24.

Spec. 18.

Battat
3. Battat teaches a network management system that displays a three-
dimensional (3-D) virtual reality environment of a networked computer
4
Appeal 2009-004219
Application 10/676,698

system’s components, such as computer systems, printers, network routers,
and other devices. The system includes a visualization workstation 101, an
object repository 102, management applications 103, and agents 104. Abst.,
col. 4, ll. 47-64, and col. 7, l. 60 – col. 8, l. 16; Fig. 1.
4. Battat shows a network’s 3-D environment with bridges and
routers. Col. 7, ll. 50-51 and col. 13, l. 51-col. 14, l. 14; Fig. 17.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“‘Functional’ terminology may render a claim quite broad. By its
own literal terms, a claim employing such language covers any and all
embodiments which perform the recited function.” In re Swinehart, 439
F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971).

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent part, a SAN
manager program capable of generating an adjacency matrix. The recitation,
“capable of generating an adjacency matrix” in claim 1, is a functional
limitation. Such limitations can render the scope of the claim quite broad.
See Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 213. Nonetheless, the collective Battat/Bird
SAN manager program must be able to perform the recited function of
generating an adjacency matrix. See id.
Battat discloses a SAN management system with a SAN manager
program (e.g., a management application 103). See FF 3. Battat further
teaches a system that creates or generates a 3-D visualization of a computer
network. FF 4. Thus, Battat’s SAN system is capable of generating 3-D
5
Appeal 2009-004219
Application 10/676,698

visualizations. While Battat does not discuss or use the word “matrix,” the
Examiner finds that the 3-D visualization in Figure 17 is an adjacency
matrix as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 4. We, however, find the Examiner’s
interpretation of the term “adjacency matrix” problematic.
Appellants define an adjacency matrix using mathematical conditions
and show an adjacency matrix in Table 1. See FF 1-2. Thus, when
construing this term in light of the disclosure, we agree with Appellants (Br.
7-8) that the term has a special meaning and corresponds to matrix algebra.
See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Moreover, we find that the ordinary and customary meaning of word
“matrix” to an ordinarily skilled artisan in the computer networking art
relates to matrix algebra -- not a 3-D visualization. See Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Using this understanding of the term “adjacency matrix,” Battat does
not disclose or teach a SAN manager program capable of generating such an
adjacency matrix. At best, Battat discloses a SAN program that generates
3-D visualizations. FF 3-4. There is no discussion in Battat that an
application 103 has a program that generates an adjacency matrix with the
mathematical conditions discussed in the disclosure. Nor is there evidence
in Battat that demonstrates any of the applications 103 have the
programming capable of performing such a function. See FF 3-4. We
therefore find that Battat does not teach or suggest a SAN manager program
capable of generating an adjacency matrix as recited in claim 1.
Moreover, Bird does not cure the deficiencies of Battat. Bird
discloses the basics of SANs and has been relied upon to demonstrate that
SAN manager programs that transfer data between storage devices in SAN
6
Appeal 2009-004219
Application 10/676,698

systems without server intervention are known by ordinarily skilled artisans.
See Ans. 4.
Independent claims 9 and 14 also recite “an adjacency matrix.” Claim
9 recites a method that includes: (1) receiving adjacent nodes and comparing
them to identify nodes already included with an adjacency matrix, and (2)
determining the nodes which should not be in the adjacency matrix. Claim
14 recites a SAN management system device with similar logic means for
performing the above method steps. Because neither Battat nor Bird would
have taught or suggested an adjacency matrix, we similarly find that the
combination would not have taught nor suggested the receiving and
determining limitations that involve the adjacency matrix recited in claims 9
and 14.
Lastly, since claims 2-8 and 10-13 depend from independent claims 1
and 9, we will not sustain the § 103 rejection of these claims.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have shown the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-14 based on the combination of Battat and Bird.

Claim 15
The Examiner finds that Battat and Bird teach all the limitations of
independent claim 15. Ans. 9. Appellants present no separate arguments
for independent claim 15. See Br. 6-8. Claim 15, however, does not recite
an adjacency matrix. Appellants’ arguments that Battat fails to teach an
adjacency matrix (id.) are therefore not commensurate with the scope of
claim 15, and we find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness
of claim 15 based on Battat and Bird.

7
Appeal 2009-004219
Application 10/676,698

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1-14, but has not erred in
rejecting claim 15 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 is affirmed-in-part.
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-IN-PART

peb

MARK C. MCCABE
IBM CORPORATION IP LAW C4TA/J2B
650 HARRY ROAD
SAN JOSE, CA 95120
8