Ex Parte Gundy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2016

13076024 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016)

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