Ex Parte Gundy et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 201613076024 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/076,024 03/30/2011 Lisa J. Gundy 50548 7590 02/02/2016 ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- IBM 1155 N. 1st St. Suite 105 SAN JOSE, CA 95112 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. TUC920110005US1/TUC1P075 2806 EXAMINER CHEEMA, AZAM M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2016 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): zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LISA J. GUNDY, BETH A. PETERSON, ALFRED E. SANCHEZ, DAVID M. SHACKELFORD, WARREN K. STANLEY, and JOHN G. THOMPSON Appeal2014-000771 Application 13/076,024 Technology Center 2100 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-22, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2014-000771 Application 13/076,024 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to "to asynchronous mirroring for disaster recovery" (Spec. i-f 1 ). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A computer program product for handling a point-in- time copy command, comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith, the computer readable program code compnsmg: computer readable program code configured to receive a point-in-time copy (PITC) command at a local site, the PITC command being for updating data on a local target storage location such that it represents data on a local source storage location; computer readable program code configured to create a data representation that represents updates to be made to the at least one target volume of the local target storage location, wherein the updates correspond to changes made to at least one source volume of the local source storage location since execution of an earlier PITC command; computer readable program code configured to create a source data sidefile entry for the at least one source volume; computer readable program code configured to create a target data side file entry for the at least one target volume; computer readable program code configured to execute the PITC command at the local site; and computer readable program code configured to create a PITC sidefile entry for the PITC command, the PITC sidefile entry including a timestamp that indicates when the PITC command was executed. 2 Appeal2014-000771 Application 13/076,024 REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 7-11, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Mikami (US 2006/0212667 Al; pub. Sept. 21, 2006). The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 12-14, and 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Mikami and Bartfai (US 2009/0249116 Al; Oct. 1, 2009). ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 Appellants contend Mikami relies on continuous copy operations and not point-in-time operations as claimed (App. Br. 10). Rather, Appellants contend, Mikami continuously updates sidefiles with information from a source volume and periodically sends this data to a target volume (id.). Thus, Appellants assert, Mikami does not anticipate Appellants' claimed invention. We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 6-18) and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 4--8). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and highlight the following for emphasis. We initially note a point in time copy (PITC) is a "copy of original data as it appeared at a point in time. In a conventional backup operation, users often create a PiT Copy, while an application is in quiescing, to make 3 Appeal2014-000771 Application 13/076,024 the PiT Copy a consistent copy of original data" (Encyclopedia of Database Systems, Springer US, pp. 2118-2119, 2009; on-line ISBN 978-0-387- 3 9940-9; http ://link. springer. com/referenceworkentry/ 10 .1007%2F97 8-0- 387-39940-9 1339; last accessed Jan. 17, 2016). 1 Thus, we find the Examiner is correct in interpreting Mikami discloses a PITC even though it is not called as such (Ans. 4; see Mikami Figs. 3A-3D; i-f 52). Next we note Appellants' claims recite a source data side file entry for at least one source volume, a target data sidefile entry for at least one target volume, and a PITC sidefile entry for a PITC command are created. The Examiner finds Figure 2, item 27 A, shows a sidefile in source storage (Ans. 4), Figure 2, item 27B shows a sidefile in a destination/target storage, and paragraph 68 discloses a control program 23A writes write data to sidefile 27 A within a prescribed timing, thus teaching a PITC sidefile entry (Ans. 5). Thus, as the Examiner has shown that each element of Appellants' claims read on Mikami, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2--4 and 7 as anticipated by Mikami. With respect to independent claim 8, Appellants submit substantially the same arguments as those set forth with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 16- 1 "There are two popular implementation techniques for creating PiT Copies inside a storage system: split mirror and copy on write. Split mirror is a technique for replicating the original data at a point in time. In some implementations, a storage system replicates the original data, and when users create the PiT Copy, a storage system splits the replication. Copy on Write (Co W) is a technique for capturing data changes to storage and creating a PiT Copy after specifying the point in time. In some implementations, when users create the PiT Copy, a storage system creates its image with both the original data and the modified data" (id.) 4 Appeal2014-000771 Application 13/076,024 22). Thus, for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 8 and dependent claims 9-11, 15, and 16. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 With respect to independent claim 1 7, Appellants contend Mikami "teaches a sidefile as a temporary storage area for storing data written to a volume" and not "combining multiple sidefile entries from multiple sidefiles into one sidefile" (App. Br. 25). Claim 1 7 recites "logic adapted for gathering source side file entries from one or more source sidefiles at a local site, wherein the one or more source sidefiles correspond to one or more local source storage locations" (emphasis added). We do not agree with Appellants. We adopt the Examiner's findings as our own (Ans. 6-7). Particularly, we agree Mikami's paragraph 70 discloses this limitation. We also note, the claim language recites "one or more" not multiple sidefiles as Appellants contend. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 17 and dependent claim 18, argued therewith, and claim 20 which recites the same limitation, as obvious over Mikami and Bartfai. With respect to dependent claims 5, 6, 12, and 14, these claims are argued as being allowable for the reasons set forth with respect to independent claims 1 and 8 (App. Br. 23-24). As we found Mikami teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 8, we also sustain the obviousness rejection over Mikami and Bartfai. 5 Appeal2014-000771 Application 13/076,024 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 7-11, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed. The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5, 6, 12-14, and 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation