Ex Parte Hubis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

10714031 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
27683 7590 03/28/2013
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
IP Section
2323 Victory Avenue
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
BENGZON, GREG C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2444
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WALTER HUBIS
____________

Appeal 2013-002332
Application 10/714,0311
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is NetApp, Inc.
Appeal 2013-002332
Application 10/714,031

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) 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. 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 generally to a network router with
caching capabilities for local processing of iSCSI block level requests. See
Spec., 1:11-12.
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 integrated within the router and used by
the router for caching storage data blocks written and read by the
block level storage requests directed from the first device to the
second,
wherein the cache memory is used to return data blocks
from the cache memory to the first device in response to a block level
storage read request received subsequent to the caching of the data
block, the subsequent request directed from the first device to read
data blocks from the second device, wherein the requested data blocks
are returned to the first device from the router without forwarding the
storage read request to the second device.

Appeal 2013-002332
Application 10/714,031

3
Appellant appeals the following rejections:

R1. Claims 1-6, 11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mullendore (US Patent Pub. 2003/0185154 A1,
Oct. 2, 2003) and Craft (US 7,124,205 B2, Oct. 17, 2006); and
R2. Claims 7, 10, 13, 17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Mullendore, Craft, and Liu (US Patent
Pub. 2004/0117441 A1, June 17, 2004).

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22

Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings of
Mullendore and Craft, particularly Craft, teaches and/or suggests that “the
cache memory is used to return data blocks . . . in response to a block level
storage read request,” as claimed?

Appellant contends that “[t]he citations to Craft disclose file format
requests and do not disclose the claimed block level read requests” (App. Br.
11). We disagree.
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 1, essentially for the reasons
indicated by the Examiner. Appellant’s arguments are limited to the
Appeal 2013-002332
Application 10/714,031

4
disclosure of Craft, therefore, we shall look for error in the Examiner’s
interpretation of Craft.
The Examiner found that “[t]here is nothing in the claim language to
differentiate the claimed block level response from the Craft data frame
containing 64 KB of file data sent from the INIC cache” (Ans. 4). Here, we
see no error in the Examiner’s equating the claimed “block level storage
read request” to Craft’s read request across network 604 requesting the first
64 KB of the file on the server (see Craft, col. 19, ll. 34-36), given the scope
and breadth of the term “block level storage read request.” Notably,
Appellant does not define the aforementioned term in the Specification to
limit its meaning. Rather, the Examiner found, and we agree, that the term
can include any read request representing portions, segments, or data chunks
of a file (see Ans. 4). Here, Craft clearly requests portions of a file, i.e., the
first 64 KB.
In view of the above discussion, since Appellant has not demonstrated
that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in the disclosure of
the cited art, particularly Craft, 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).

Appeal 2013-002332
Application 10/714,031

5
AFFIRMED

gvw