Ex Parte Jibbe

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 9, 2009

10629877 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 9, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MAHMOUD K. JIBBE
____________________

Appeal 2009-0040951
Application 10/629,877
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: December 9, 2009
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, STEPHEN C. SIU, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Filed July 29, 2003. The real party in interest is LSI Logic, Inc. (App. Br.
1.)
Appeal 2009-004095
Application 10/629,877

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 12 and 14 through 27. Claim
13 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method and a system for establishing
redundancy in a storage area network (SAN). (Spec. 18, Title and Abstract.)
As shown in Appellant’s Figure 1, the SAN includes a primary storage array
controller module (70) containing a top array controller unit (72) and a
bottom array controller unit (74). The SAN also includes a
secondary/backup storage array controller module (80) containing a top
array controller unit (82) and a bottom array controller unit (84). The SAN
further includes an array of storage devices (100) being accessed by the
primary controller module (70), which periodically issues an availability
signal to the backup controller module (80). Upon failing to receive the
signal from the primary storage controller (70) within a predetermined
period of time, the backup controller (80) asserts control over the storage
devices (100). (Spec. 5-6, para. [0013]-[0014].)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A storage array network, comprising:
Appeal 2009-004095
Application 10/629,877

3
a first and second storage array controller module,
wherein each storage array controller module has a first and
second array controller unit; and
an array of storage devices,
wherein the first storage array controller module is a
primary storage array controller that performs storage array
controller functions and the second storage array controller
module is a redundant back up,
wherein the first storage array controller module provides
an availability signal to the second storage array controller
module,
wherein if the second storage array controller module
does not receive a signal from the first storage array controller
module within a given period of time, the second storage array
controller module asserts control over the array of storage
devices.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Jantz 5,944,838 Aug. 31, 1999
Sawdy 6,351,831 B1 Feb. 26, 2002
Cruyningen 2002/0019897 A1 Feb. 14, 2002
Ito 2003/0014600 A1 Jan. 16, 2003
Workman 2004/0068591 A1 Apr. 8, 2004
Rauscher 6,874,100 B2 Mar. 29, 2005
Deng 6,937,608 B1 Aug. 30, 2005

Quickloop 2.0, An Advanced Fabric Service for Fibre Channel Loops,
Brocade, pub. June 26, 2002 (hereinafter “Brocade”).

Appeal 2009-004095
Application 10/629,877

4
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9 stand rejected as being unpatentable over the
combination of Sawdy, Rauscher, and Cruyningen.
2. Claim 3 stands rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of
Sawdy, Rauscher, Cruyningen and Brocade.
3. Claims 5 through 7 stand rejected as being unpatentable over the
combination of Sawdy, Rauscher, Cruyningen and Deng.
4. Claims 10 through 12, 14 through 18, 20, and 22 through 27 stand
rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Sawdy, Rauscher,
Cruyningen, Workman and Jantz.
5. Claims 19 and 21stand rejected as being unpatentable over the
combination of Sawdy, Rauscher, Cruyningen, Workman, Jantz and Ito.
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that the combination of Sawdy, Rauscher and
Cruyningen does not teach a first and second storage controller module, each
having a first and a second storage controller unit, wherein upon the first
controller module failing to provide an availability signal within a
predetermined period of time, the second controller module assuming all
responsibilities of the first controller module, as recited in independent claim
1. (App. Br. 6-9.) According to Appellant, while Sawdy discloses two
controllers, they are not designated as a primary controller and a backup
controller. (Id. at 6.) Further, Appellant argues that while Rauscher
discloses two or more controllers that communicate with one another by
Appeal 2009-004095
Application 10/629,877

5
exchanging heartbeat signals, the exchanged signals are not availability
signals that are periodically exchanged between the controllers. (Id. at 7.)
Appellant also argues that while Cruyningen discloses using switches to
group a plurality of controllers and storage units within I/O channel
partitions, such grouping of disks is not equivalent to grouping a first and a
second controller units in each controller module. (Id. at 7-8.) Additionally,
Appellant argues that there is insufficient rationale to properly combine the
teachings of the cited references to render claim 1 unpatentable. (Id. at 8.)
Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner finds that Sawdy’s disclosure of two redundant
controllers, each having two identical ports, teaches two controller modules,
each having two controller units. (Ans. 11.) The Examiner further finds that
Rauscher’s disclosure of two controllers exchanging heartbeat signals2 to
initiate a failover procedure therebetween teaches periodically
communicating availability signals among the controllers to detect if one of
them has failed. (Id. at 12.) The Examiner also finds that Cruyningen’s
disclosure of grouping disk arrays so they can be accessed by any of the
controller modules complements Sawdy’s system such that if a primary
controller fails, the surviving secondary controller can take over the
functions of the primary controller. (Id. at 13-14.) Additionally, the
Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found

2 The Examiner relies upon the definition of “heartbeat” provided in The
Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms, p.509, 7th Edition, 2000.
(See Ans. 12.)
Appeal 2009-004095
Application 10/629,877

6
sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of the cited references to render
claim 1 unpatentable. (Id. at 14.)

II. ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the
disclosures of Sawdy, Rauscher, and Cruyningen are properly combined to
teach or suggest a first and second storage controller module, each having a
first and a second storage controller unit, whereupon the first controller
module failing to provide an availability signal within a predetermined
period of time, the second controller module assumes all responsibilities of
the first controller module?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Sawdy
1. As shown in Figure 2, Sawdy discloses a redundant array of
independent disks (RAID) system having two controllers (210, 212), each
containing a first port for accessing a first array of disk drives, and a second
port for accessing a second array of disk drives (214, 218). (Col. 2, ll. 11-
19.)
2. Sawdy further discloses that the dual controller configuration
enhances reliability of the RAID system such that if one controller fails, the
Appeal 2009-004095
Application 10/629,877

7
surviving controller assumes the work of the controller pair. (Col. 2, l. 67-
col. 3, l. 3.)
Rauscher
3. Rauscher discloses a RAID system that has two or more
controllers redundantly arranged to I/O requests from host computers. Col.
2, ll. 10-16.) The controllers exchange heartbeat connect signals with one
another to communicate their statuses. (Col. 2, ll. 59-60.) Upon a controller
failing to send or respond to a signal, the surviving controller assumes the
tasks of the failed controller, and processes all the operations for the RAID
system. (Col. 2, ll. 62-67.)
Cruyningen
4. As shown in Figure 3, Cruyningen discloses a data storage
system having two controllers (10a, 10b) for accessing two storage arrays
(20a, 20b) via two pairs of storage channels (14a1-14a2, 14b1-14b2). (Para.
[0034].) Upon detecting that a controller has failed, the switches between
the storage arrays are closed such that only the surviving controller has
access to all the storage devices via the pair of storage channels associated
therewith. (Para. [0038].)
Workman
5. As shown in Figure 1, Workman discloses primary and
secondary storage controllers (20, 40) redundantly arranged to access a
plurality of single ported storage devices (1, k-1, k, 2k-1) via multiple paths.
Each of the controllers includes a processor that runs an algorithm for
monitoring the different paths (including the heartbeat path (74)) that
Appeal 2009-004095
Application 10/629,877

8
separate them. Upon detecting from the heartbeat path that the secondary
controller is operating abnormally, the algorithm activates the primary
controller failover (76) to take over the activities of the secondary controller.
(Para. [0030]-[0031].)
Jantz
6. Jantz discloses a redundant storage control module referred to
as a RDAC (redundant dual-active control/multi-active controllers) that
maintains a queue of pending I/O requests. As shown in Figure 3, I/O
requests to the RDAC (304) are stored in dispatch queues (306, 308).
Copies of the I/O requests are subsequently stored in the I/O queue (312).
(Col. 6, l. 56 - col. 7, l. 5.)

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a
rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie
obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary
indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 1998)).
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior
art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
Appeal 2009-004095
Application 10/629,877

9
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized "the need for caution in
granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior
art" and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to
be obvious. Id. at 415 (citation omitted). The Court reaffirmed principles
based on its precedent that "[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results." Id. at 416. The operative question in this
"functional approach" is thus "whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions." Id. at 415, 417.
The Federal Circuit recently recognized that "[a]n obviousness
determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the
consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those
skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been
obvious where others would not." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 416).
The Federal Circuit relied in part on the fact that Leapfrog had presented no
evidence that the inclusion of a reader in the combined device was “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art." Id. at 1162 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-
418).
Appeal 2009-004095
Application 10/629,877

10
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). .
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See
Kahn, 441 F.3d at 987-988 (citation omitted); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425). Moreover, in
evaluating such references it is proper to take into account “not only the
specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (citation omitted).

V. CLAIM GROUPING
Appellant argues the patentability of claims 1 through 9 in
conjunction with the rejection of claims 1. Appellant argues the
patentability of claims 10 through 12, 14 through 27 in conjunction with the
rejection of claims 10 and 22. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii), we will consider the claims on appeal as standing and
falling with representative claims 1, 10 and 22.

VI. ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires, in relevant parts, a first and second
storage controller module, each having a first and a second storage controller
Appeal 2009-004095
Application 10/629,877

11
unit, whereupon the first controller module failing to provide an availability
signal within a predetermined period of time, the second controller module
assumes all responsibilities of the first controller module.
As set forth in the Findings of Facts section, Sawdy discloses a RAID
system having two controllers, each having a pair of ports for accessing two
arrays of disks. (FF. 1.) Further, Sawdy discloses that the controllers are
arranged in a redundant fashion such that if one controller fails, the other can
take over to process all I/O requests in the systems. (FF. 2.) Next, Rauscher
discloses a RAID having two or more redundantly arranged controllers that
periodically exchange heartbeat signals to inform one another of their
operating statuses. (FF. 3.) Upon detecting a controller’s failure to respond
to a heartbeat signal, another controller takes over the responsibilities of the
non-responsive controller to process the I/O operations of the RAID. (Id.)
Additionally, Cruyningen discloses a data storage having two controllers for
accessing arrays of disk drives. (FF. 4.) Upon detecting that one of the
controllers has failed, the system that utilizes a switching mechanism to
transfer all tasks of the failed controller to the surviving one. (Id.)
We find that the two ports disclosed in each of Sawdy’s controllers
serve as conduits for accessing the disk drives. In particular, similarly to the
claimed array controller units, they serve as interfaces through which the
controllers access the disk dives. We thus agree with the Examiner that
Sawdy’s ports teach the controller units. (Ans. 11.) Further, since Appellant
has failed to address in a Reply Brief this new finding made by the Examiner
in the Answer, the Examiner’s finding as to this point is unrebutted.
Appeal 2009-004095
Application 10/629,877

12
Next, we find that Rauscher’s disclosure of exchanging heartbeat
signals among the controllers to inform one another of their statuses teaches
the claimed availability signals since the transmission of status or the failure
thereof indicates whether a controller is operating properly and whether it is
thereby available to process I/O requests. Further, we find that each of
Rauscher’s controllers needs to transmit or receive an availability signal
within a predetermined period of time to prevent other controllers from
usurping their operating functions. (FF. 3.)
Additionally, we find that Cruyningen’s disclosure of switching the
operating functions of a failed controller to a surviving controller
cumulatively reinforces the teachings Sawdy and Rauscher. It is therefore
our view that Sawdy, Rauscher and Cruyningen disclose prior art elements
that perform their ordinary functions to predictably result in a RAID having
two redundantly arranged controller modules, each having two controller
units for accessing an array of disk drives, whereupon one of the controllers
failing to exchange or acknowledge an availability signal within a
predetermined period of time, the other controller takes over its operating
functions. Therefore, Appellant’s argument that the cited references are not
properly combined is not persuasive. It follows that Appellant has not
shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Sawdy,
Rauscher and Cruyningen renders claim 1 unpatentable.
Regarding claim 10, Appellant argues that the combination of Sawdy,
Rauscher, Cruyningen, Workman, and Jantz does not teach a handshaking
protocol between the two controllers for determining which of the
Appeal 2009-004095
Application 10/629,877

13
controllers is used to process a received command. (App. Br. 11.)
According to Appellant, while Workman discloses controllers that monitor
each heartbeat connection to act if a connection is interrupted, there is no
negotiation or mutual agreement between the communicating devices in
Workman to warrant a handshaking protocol. (Id.) In response, the
Examiner finds that Workman’s disclosure of a primary controller and a
secondary controller monitoring a heartbeat path to determine whether a
controller should take over the responsibilities of another controller when it
is operating abnormally teaches the handshaking protocol.3 (Ans. 15-16.)
We first consider the scope and meaning of the terms “handshaking
protocol,” which must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with Appellant’s disclosure, as explained in In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997):
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant's specification.
Id. at 1054. See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating
that “claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably
allow.”). Appellant’s Specification states the following:

3 The Examiner relies upon the definition for handshaking (An interlocked
exchange of signals between a master and a slave, controlling the transfer of
data) provided in The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms,
p.503, 7th Edition, 2000.
Appeal 2009-004095
Application 10/629,877

14
The primary array controller module (PM) and the second array
controller module engage in a timed handshaking protocol 230.
If the primary array controller module successfully handshakes
with the second array controller module within a given time, the
primary array controller module retains control of the command
240 and processes the command 250. In an embodiment, if the
primary array controller module processes the command, the
primary array controller module may remove the command (as
by deleting from a queue) such that the secondary array
controller module is prevented from assuming control even if
the module handshaking protocol were to fail. In another
embodiment, if the primary array controller module
unsuccessfully handshakes with the secondary array controller
module, the secondary array controller module assumes control
for processing the command 260, 250. After the command is
processed, a new command may be retrieved from the queue
220.

(Spec. 7, para [0015].)
Our reviewing court further states, “the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim
term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.”
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Upon reviewing Appellant’s Specification, we find no explicit
definition for the claim terms “handshaking protocol.” We therefore
construe the cited terms in accordance with its ordinary meaning. We note
that Appellant has not provided any authority for the definition offered at
page 11 the Brief. We therefore adopt the broader dictionary definition
provided by the authority cited in the Examiner’s Answer.4

4 See The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms, p.503, 7th
Edition, 2000 (defining handshaking as the exchange of predetermined
Appeal 2009-004095
Application 10/629,877

15
As detailed above, both Rauscher and Workman disclose using
algorithms that monitor the heartbeat paths between two redundantly
arranged storage controllers to determine whether any of the controllers is
not operating properly, and if so, transferring its operating functions to the
surviving controller. (FF. 3, 5.) We find that, pursuant to the definition
adopted above, by exchanging heartbeat signals between the two controllers
to determine the availability statuses of the controllers, and to subsequently
transfer the activities of a failing controller to a surviving controller, both
Rauscher and Workman teach using a handshaking protocol to determine
which of the controllers will be processing a request. It follows that
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the
combination of Sawdy, Rauscher, Cruyningen, Workman, and Jantz renders
claim 10 unpatentable.
Regarding claim 22, Appellant argues that the combination of Sawdy,
Rauscher, Cruyningen, Workman and Jantz does not teach storing a
command within two separate queues. (App. Br. 12.) We do not agree. As
detailed above, Jantz discloses a low level disk driver that maintains
dispatch queues for buffering I/O requests made by RDAC. (FF. 6.)
Further, copies of the requests are stored in the I/O queues. (Id.) We find
that the I/O requests are commands that are redundantly stored in separate
queues. It follows that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in

signals or control measures between two systems or system components
upon initial exchanges).
Appeal 2009-004095
Application 10/629,877

16
concluding that the combination of Sawdy, Rauscher, Cruyningen,
Workman and Jantz renders claim 22 unpatentable.

VII. CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 through 12 and 14 through 27 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VIII. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 12 and 14
through 27.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

nhl

LSI Corporation c/o Suiter Swantz pc llo
14301 FNB Parkway, Suite 220
Omaha NE 68154