Ex Parte HubisDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 16, 201110714031 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2011) Copy Citation 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. 10/714,031 11/14/2003 Walter Hubis 03-1651 2851 84300 7590 03/17/2011 Duft Bornsen & Fishman LLP 1526 Spruce Street Suite 302 Boulder County, CO 80302 EXAMINER BENGZON, GREG C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2444 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/17/2011 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 WALTER HUBIS ____________ Appeal 2009-006787 Application 10/714,0311 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL2 1 Application filed November 14, 2003. The real party in interest is LSI Corporation. 2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-006787 Application 10/714,031 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22, which are all the claims remaining in the application, as claims 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 19, and 20 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The present invention “relates to a network router with caching capabilities for local processing of iSCSI block level requests to improve storage subsystem performance in storage networks.” (Spec., 1, ll. 10-12.) Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A storage network appliance comprising: a TCP/IP router for routing block level storage requests through a TCP/IP network communication medium from a first device coupled to the router to a second device coupled to the router; and a cache memory coupled to the router for caching storage data blocks accessed by the block level storage requests, wherein the cache memory is used by the router to store data blocks exchanged between the first and second devices through the router, and wherein the cache memory is used to return data blocks from the cache memory to the first device in response to a received block level storage request directed from the first device to read data blocks from the second device without forwarding the storage request to the second device. Appellant appeals the following rejections: 1. Claims 1-6, 11, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable Appeal 2009-006787 Application 10/714,031 3 over Mullendore (US Patent Pub. 2003/0185154 A1, Oct. 2, 2003) in view of what was well known in the art; and 2. Claims 7, 10, 13, 17, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mullendore in view of Liu (US Patent Pub. 2004/0117441 A1, Jun. 17, 2004). FACTUAL FINDINGS 1. Mullendore discloses a Fast Write feature with Fast Write enabled wherein: [A]s shown in FIG. 7, the near-end switch 250 responds to the SCSI Write command received from initiator 235 with a Ready- To-Transfer message on behalf of the target 245. Instead of requesting 1KB block of data, switch 250 requests that the entire 1 MB be transferred. Since there is not necessarily 1 MB of available buffer on the far-end target 245, the far-end switch 240 stores or caches the 1 MB of data. The Write command is forwarded to the target 245 where the target requests data, in this example 1 KB of data, be sent by issuing a Ready-To- Transfer message for 1KB. The far-end switch 240, now storing the 1 MB of data, responds with 1 KB of data. (¶ [0072].) 2. In Mullendore, “the Congestion Manager, rate limiter and Fast Write Module of the present invention are implemented in network switch devices. However, it should be understood that Congestion Manager and Fast Modules as described herein can be implemented in any of a variety of other network devices, such as routers.” (¶ [0077].) Appeal 2009-006787 Application 10/714,031 4 ANALYSIS Claims 1-7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 Appellant argues claims 1-7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 as a group (App. Br. 8-10). For claims 2-7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22, Appellant repeats the same argument made for claim 1. We will, therefore, treat claims 2-7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 as standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See also In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Mullendore discloses a cache memory coupled to the router whereby the cache memory is used to return data blocks from the cache memory to the first device . . . without forwarding the storage request to the second device, as set forth in claim 1? Appellant contends that “such caching is not known in the art of network appliances and in particular iSCSI routers. Rather, a router’s intended purpose is to pass an exchange from a source device to a destination device.” (App. Br. 8.) Appellant further contends that “there is no art provided by the Examiner or any suggestion in the art to apply cache memory management techniques and structures within a network appliance router (a TCP/IP storage router).” (App. Br. 10.) In response, the Examiner found that Mullendore’s paragraph [0072] and Fig. 7 discloses a cache memory as set forth in the claimed invention. Appeal 2009-006787 Application 10/714,031 5 The Examiner further found that “it would have been well-known in the networking art that if a request for data is satisfied by a cache then there would be no need to forward said request for data.” (see Ans. 4-5) We agree with the Examiner. We further add that although Appellant argues that Mullendore fails to disclose a router that performs cache memory management techniques, representative claim 1 is written much broader in that it does not require that the router itself includes the cache memory. Instead, claim 1 merely requires that a cache memory is coupled to the TCP/IP router. The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). During prosecution before the USPTO, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). Here, the claims merely require a router being coupled to a cache memory wherein the cache memory is used by the router. The Examiner found that Mullendore discloses a Fast Write feature where a “far-end switch” is used to cache 1 MB of data. In Mullendore, the “target” requests 1 KB of data by issuing a Ready-To-Transfer message. In response to this request, the far-end switch responds with 1 KB of data. (FF 1.) In other words, Mullendore’s cache memory (i.e., far-end switch 240) deliverers the data block from the cache memory to the target without forwarding the request, i.e., Ready-To-Transfer message, to the second device (i.e., the initiator). Furthermore, Mullendore discloses that the Fast Appeal 2009-006787 Application 10/714,031 6 Modules, i.e., far-end switch, could be implemented as routers (FF 2). Thus, we find that not only was it well-known that cache memory eliminates the need to forward a request, but also that Mullendore discloses a switch and/or router that can perform the same functions as the cache memory set forth in the claimed invention. In view of the above discussion, since Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in the disclosure of Mullendore, and that Liu does not cure the deficiencies of Mullendore, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 2-7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 not separately argued by Appellant, is sustained. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED ke Appeal 2009-006787 Application 10/714,031 7 Duft Bornsen & Fishman LLP 1526 Spruce Street Suite 302 Boulder County, CO 80302 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation