Ex Parte Goyal

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 19, 2011

10721602 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 19, 2011)

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.
10/721,602 11/25/2003 Pawan Goyal ARC 9-2003-0077US1 5994
7590 10/20/2011
JOSEPH C. REDMOND, JR
43464 FOXGROVE COURT
ASHBURN, VA 20147
EXAMINER
DAYE, CHELCIE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PAWAN GOYAL
____________

Appeal 2010-000075
Application 10/721,602
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20, 22-24, and 26. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention asynchronously remotely copies database
content changes from a primary to a remote site. See generally Abstract;
Spec. 2-3. Claim 1 is illustrative with a key disputed limitation emphasized:
Appeal 2010-000075
Application 10/721,602

2
1. A method for asynchronously remotely copying database content
changes from a primary site to a remote site, the method comprising:
associating a sequential identification with each respective log record
write and each corresponding data record write received at the primary site,
each data record write containing modifications to a page of the database
and each log record write containing information describing modifications to
the page of the database for a corresponding data record write;
asynchronously remotely copying each respective log record write
from the primary site to the remote site;
receiving an acknowledgement at the primary site, the
acknowledgement corresponding to a log record write that has been
completed at the remote site; and
asynchronously remotely copying each data record write having a
sequential identification that is only prior to or equal to the sequential
identification of the log record write corresponding to the received
acknowledgement.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Shomler US 5,623,599 Apr. 22, 1997
Yanai US 6,502,205 B1 Dec. 31, 2002
Kawamura US 2004/0193658 A1 Sept. 30, 2004
(filed Aug. 29, 2003)

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-7, 10, 13-15, 18-20, 24, and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yanai and Kawamura.
Ans. 4-6.1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 22, and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yanai, Kawamura, and
Shomler. Ans. 6-7.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 24, 2009
and the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 22, 2009.
Appeal 2010-000075
Application 10/721,602

3
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER YANAI AND KAWAMURA
The Examiner finds that Yanai discloses every recited feature of
independent claim 1 except for the claim’s last three clauses including
asynchronously remotely copying each respective log write from a primary
to a remote site, but cites Kawamura as teaching this feature in concluding
that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 4-5, 7-10.
Appellant argues that Kawamura not only fails to teach or suggest
asynchronously copying log writes as claimed, but actually teaches away
from doing so. Br. 6-14.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Yanai and Kawamura collectively would have taught or suggested
asynchronously remotely copying each respective log write from a primary
to a remote site? This issue turns on whether Kawamura teaches away from
this technique.

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Kawamura indicates that asynchronously2 transferring a log and
database (DB) is a known disaster recovery technique. Although the main

2 In asynchronous operation, the main site’s storage apparatus reports
writing completion to that site’s host computer without waiting to complete
the pertinent data transfer to the remote site. Kawamura, ¶¶ 0008-09. In
synchronous operation, however, after a receipt report of pertinent data
arrives in the remote site, the main site’s storage apparatus reports writing
completion to the main site’s host computer. Id. at ¶¶ 0005-06. The
inherent delays in synchronous operation, however, degrade performance.
Id. at ¶ 0006.
Appeal 2010-000075
Application 10/721,602

4
site’s performance is slightly degraded using this technique, the main site’s
completed transactions’ modification contents are sometimes lost in the
remote site. Kawamura, ¶¶ 0013, 0016-17 (“Background of the Invention”
section), 0019.
2. Kawamura notes that while the asynchronous method reduces
possible performance degradation as compared to synchronous methods, it is
nonetheless possible to lose recent data in the remote site and lose
transactions. Kawamura, ¶¶ 0008-09.
3. The objects of Kawamura’s invention are to (1) lower the
possibility of losing modification contents of completed main site (or
primary system) transactions in the remote site (or secondary system), and
(2) reduce performance degradation in the primary system. To this end,
responsive to a write request to a secondary system, Kawamura modifies (1)
log information by synchronous writing, and (2) DB data and status
information by asynchronous writing. Kawamura, ¶¶ 0020-22, 0025-26,
0033, 0046.
4. Kawamura’s disaster recovery system includes a primary host
computer 1 with a checkpoint processing section 112 that transmits write
requests of (1) all DB blocks modified in DB buffer 12, and (2) status
information indicating a log disk of a latest log record at that time point and
its location from the primary host computer to a primary disk subsystem 2.
The primary host computer’s DB delay write processing section 114
transmits a write request of DB data on the DB buffer 12 to the primary disk
subsystem. Kawamura, ¶¶ 0048-49; Fig. 1.

Appeal 2010-000075
Application 10/721,602

5
5. The primary host computer’s log management section 113
transmits a write request of a log block 262a (i.e., log information indicating
contents of DB processing conducting on the DB buffer) to the primary disk
subsystem. Kawamura, ¶ 0050; Fig. 1.
6. The primary disk subsystem’s command processing section 211
receives a write request of (1) a DB block 242a; (2) status information or log
block 262a; and (3) modifying contents of primary DB, status, and log disks
24-26. Kawamura, ¶ 0053; Fig. 1.
7. According to Kawamura:
If . . . the received write request is a write request of the log
block 262a, then the primary remote copy processing section
212 conducts synchronous write processing of the log block
262 into a secondary disk subsystem 4 . . . . If the received
write request is a write request of the log block 242a or status
information, then the primary remote copy processing section . .
. conducts asynchronous write processing into the secondary
disk subsystem 4.

Kawamura, ¶ 0054.
8. According to Kawamura:
With respect to a write request of the log block 262a included
in write requests transmitted from the primary host computer 1
as described above, the primary disk subsystem 2 . . . conducts
synchronous remote copy processing to the secondary disk
subsystem 4 in synchronism with writing performed in the
primary disk subsystem 2. With respect to writing of a DB
block and status information, the primary disk subsystem 2 . . .
conducts asynchronous remote copy processing, which is not
synchronized to writing in the primary disk subsystem 2, to the
secondary disk subsystem 4.

Kawamura, ¶ 0071.
Appeal 2010-000075
Application 10/721,602

6
9. Kawamura’s Figure 2 outlines synchronous remote copy
processing in a log block 262a, and Figure 3 outlines asynchronous remote
copy processing of DB blocks 242a and status information. Compare
Kawamura, ¶¶ 0036, 0072-74; Fig. 2 with ¶¶ 0037, 0075-77; Fig. 3.
10. Based on information in the tables in Figures 4 and 5, it can be
determined if each log block, DB block, and status information is written
into the secondary disk subsystem synchronously or asynchronously. For
example, the log block “LOG1” with primary disk control device and
physical device IDs “CTL#A1” and “VOL12-A” in the table of Figure 4
corresponds to a “synchronous” copy mode in Figure 5 (Row 2 of that
table). Kawamura, ¶ 0082; Figs. 4-5.
11. The ID “DBAREA1” in Row 1 of the Figure 4 table has primary
disk control device and physical device IDs “CTL#A1” and “VOL11-A.”
The “STATUS1” ID in Row 5 of the Figure 4 table has primary disk control
device and physical device IDs “CTL#A2” and “VOL12-A.” This data
corresponds to the “asynchronous” copy modes in Rows 1 and 3,
respectively, of the table in Figure 5. Kawamura, Figs. 4-5.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[W]hen the prior art teaches away from combining certain known
elements, discovery of a successful means of combining them is more likely
to be nonobvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
Appeal 2010-000075
Application 10/721,602

7
the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner’s reliance on Yanai is
undisputed. Rather, the dispute before us hinges on whether Kawamura
teaches away from asynchronously remotely copying each respective log
write from a primary to a remote site as claimed. For the following reasons,
we find that it does.
To be sure, Kawamura acknowledges that asynchronously transferring
log information for disaster recovery is known. FF 1-2. But this technique
has problems, namely losing the main site’s completed transactions’
modification contents in the remote site. Id. And overcoming this problem
is the very point of Kawamura’s invention, namely by (1) synchronously
writing log information, and (2) asynchronously writing DB data and status
information. FF 3, 9-11. By combining both synchronous and
asynchronous transfers, Kawamura realizes the advantages of each, namely
(1) ensuring data arrives at the remote site via a notification from the remote
site using synchronous operation, yet (2) reducing the possibility of losing
transaction modification contents in the remote site via asynchronous
operation. See FF 1, 3, 9-11.
Kawamura’s unambiguous avoidance of asynchronously transferring
log information in view of its inherent drawbacks not only discourages
skilled artisans from following that approach, but also leads them in a
Appeal 2010-000075
Application 10/721,602

8
direction divergent from the path taken by Appellant, namely
asynchronously remotely copying log record writes as claimed. See Kahn,
441 F.3d at 990. Kawamura therefore teaches away from that technique.
The Examiner’s contention (Ans. 8) that the “slight degradation to the
site” in connection with Kawamura’s discussion of asynchronous log
transfers in the Background of the Invention section allegedly does not teach
away from the claimed invention is unavailing for it ignores the principal
drawback of asynchronous transfers, namely losing transaction modification
contents at the remote site. FF 1-2. In fact, this “slight” performance
degradation that Kawamura refers to is actually advantageous for
asynchronous transfers compared to the more pronounced performance
degradation due to the inherent delays associated with synchronous
transfers. See FF 1.
Although Kawamura is replete with teachings supporting the idea of
(1) synchronously writing log information, and (2) asynchronously writing
DB data and status information (see e.g., FF 3, 8-11), the Examiner
nonetheless contends that, in addition to the Background section of the
patent, Kawamura contemplates asynchronous log information transfers in
Paragraphs 0054 and 0082. Ans. 9-10. To be sure, Kawamura’s Paragraph
0054 indicates that “[i]f the received write request is a write request of the
log block 242a or status information, then the primary remote copy
processing section . . . conducts asynchronous write processing . . . .” FF 7.
But when considering the document as a whole, we agree with Appellant
(Br. 10-12) that Kawamura’s reference to “log block 242a” in Paragraph
0054 is a typographical error, and should read “DB block 242a” to be
Appeal 2010-000075
Application 10/721,602

9
consistent with the repeated usage of these terms and corresponding
reference numerals throughout the document. Compare FF 7 with FF 5-6,
8-9 (referring to DB block 242a and log block 262a). Accord Kawamura,
Fig. 1 (locating numeral 242a within DB buffer 12 and numeral 262a within
log buffer 14). That Kawamura repeatedly includes status information with
DB block transfers (FF 3-4, 6, 8-9) only bolsters our conclusion that
Kawamura intended for “log block 242a or status information” in Paragraph
0054 to actually refer to “DB block 242a or status information.”
The Examiner’s reliance on Kawamura’s Paragraph 0082 (Ans. 9-10)
is likewise unavailing. Although the information in the tables in Figures 4
and 5 can be used to determine if each log block, DB block, and status
information is written into the secondary disk subsystem synchronously or
asynchronously (FF 10), that does not mean that Kawamura does not teach
away from asynchronous log information transfers. Indeed, the information
from these tables merely confirms the point of Kawamura’s invention noted
previously: that Kawamura transmits the log information synchronously (FF
10) and DB information asynchronously (FF 11). Appellant’s point in this
regard (Br. 13) is well taken.
We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 7, 10, 15, and 20 which recite
commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 4-6, 13, 14, 18, 19, 24,
and 26 for similar reasons.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER YANAI, KAWAMURA, AND SHOMLER
Since the Examiner has not shown that the cited prior art cures the
deficiencies noted above regarding the independent claims, we reverse the
Appeal 2010-000075
Application 10/721,602

10
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 22, and
23 (Ans. 6-7) for similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20, 22-24, and 26 under
§ 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20, 22-24, and 26 is
reversed.

REVERSED

pgc