Ex Parte Jibbe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

13085713 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

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.
13/085,713 04/13/2011 Mahmoud K. Jibbe 1496.00739 /L10-0689US1 2661
57299 7590
Kathy Manke
Avago Technologies Limited
4380 Ziegler Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
EXAMINER
WADDY JR, EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2135
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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):
kathy .manke @ broadcom. com
patent.info@broadcom.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAHMOUD K. JIBBE, CHANDAN A. MARATHE,
MANJUNATH BALAGATTE GANGADHARAN,
and NATESH SOMANNA
Appeal 2016-003832
Application 13/085,7131
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—6 and 8—21, which constitute all the pending
claims. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Avago Technologies General IP
(Singapore) Pte. Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-003832
Application 13/085,713
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to data storage employing a hybrid
mixture Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) volume. Abstract;
Spec. 1,11. 5—10. Claim 1 is exemplary of the matter on appeal (disputed
limitations emphasized):
1. An apparatus comprising:
a controller configured to generate a control signal in
response to one or more input/output requests; and
a plurality of storage drives arranged as one or more
volumes, wherein (i) each of said volumes comprises a plurality
of drive groups, (ii) each of said groups comprises a particular
type of storage drive, (Hi) said controller is configured to form-
said volume across drives from two or more of said groups
creating a hybrid mixture Redundant Array of Independent
Disks (RAID) volume, (iv) said controller writes (a) a first type
of data with a high priority to a first of said types of storage
drive and (b) a second type of data with a low priority to a
second of said types of storage drive, (v) a determination of
data with said high priority and data with said low priority is (a)
based on characteristics of said input/output requests and (b)
determined on a per block level, (vi) information on logical
mappings and physical mappings of said types of data is stored
as meta data and (vii) data is moved between said first type of
drive and said second type of drive in response to how often
said data is accessed.
App. Br. 21 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 9—11, and 18—20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US 2008/0040543 Al;
pub. Feb. 14, 2008) (“Yamazaki”), Takaoka et al. (US 2008/0276061 Al;
pub. Nov. 6, 2008) (“Takaoka”), Aizman (US 2012/0011337 Al; pub. Jan.
2
Appeal 2016-003832
Application 13/085,713
12, 2012), and Nagata (US 2006/0236056 Al; Oct. 19, 2006). Final Act. 5-
19.
Claims 4—6 and 8 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yamazaki, Takaoka, Aizman, Nagata, and Yoshida
et al. (US 2011/0246730 Al; pub. Oct. 6, 2011) (“Yoshida”). Id. at 19-25.
Claims 12—14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yamazaki, Aizman, Nagata, and Mukherjee et al.
(US 2008/0077736 Al; pub. March 27, 2008) (“Mukherjee”). Id. at 25-29.
Claim 15 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamazaki, Takaoka, Aizman, Nagata, Mukherjee, and
Yoshida. Id. at 29-32.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yamazaki, Takaoka, Aizman, Nagata, and Vaid et
al. (US 2010/0318734 Al; pub. Dec. 16, 2010) (“Vaid”). Id. at 32-35.
Claim 21 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamazaki, Aizman, Nagata, Takaoka, and Ben-Dor et al.
(US 2011/0138138 Al; pub. June 9, 2011) (“Ben-Dor”). Id. at 35-37.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the cited references do not teach the claim 1
limitations:
(Hi) said controller is configured to form said volume across
drives from two or more of said groups creating a hybrid
mixture Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) volume,
[and] . . .
3
Appeal 2016-003832
Application 13/085,713
(vii) data is moved between said first type of drive and said
second type of drive in response to how often said data is
accessed.
App. Br. 9-13 (emphasis added).
Regarding limitation (iii), Appellants argue the Examiner errs in
finding Yamazaki teaches creating each volume of a RAID (Redundant
Array of Independent Disks) as a hybrid mixture RAID volume. Id. at 9
(citing Yamazaki || 6, 9, 10). According to Appellants:
Yamazaki paragraph [0006] merely discloses “a disk array
apparatus combining a plurality of hard disk drives with
different interface standards is used in recent years.” A disk
array (which is a physical grouping of disks) is different from a
RAID volume (which is a logical mapping of storage sectors),
and a disk array that includes hard disk drives with different
interface standards is different from a RAID volume that
includes a logical mapping of a hybrid mixture of backend
drives.
Yamazaki paragraphs [0009] and [0010] also fail to disclose
creating each volume of a RAID as a hybrid mixture RAID
volume. Yamazaki paragraph [0009] states “a logical volume is
formed in a RAID group with redundancy made up of a
plurality of the above described hard disk drives”. Yamazaki
paragraph [0010] states “a logical volume is formed in a RAID
group consisting of a plurality of the above described first or
second hard disk drives”. With regards to logical volumes,
Yamazaki paragraphs [0009] and [0010] merely state that: 1) a
RAID group can include hard disk drives with different
interface standards, and that 2) a logical volume can be formed
in a RAID group that includes hard disk drives with different
interface standards. Yamazaki paragraphs [0009] and [0010],
however, do not disclose that each logical volume itself is made
up of hard disk drives with different interface standards. In
fact, interpreting the quoted portions of Yamazaki paragraphs
[0009] and [0010] to mean that each logical volume itself is
made up of hard disk drives with different interface standards is
4
Appeal 2016-003832
Application 13/085,713
an incorrect interpretation. More specifically, Yamazaki
paragraph [0102] explicitly discloses a RAID group (Yamazaki
reference element 82) where all hard disk drives that belong to
a RAID group 82 has the same interface standard.
If the quoted portions of Yamazaki paragraphs [0009] and
[0010] were to interpreted to mean that each logical volume
itself is made up of hard disk drives with different interface
standards, then it could not be true for the RAID group 82 to
include all hard disk drives of the same interface standard
(because doing so would force the logical volumes 83 that
belong to the RAID group 82 to include hard disk drives of the
same interface standard as well). However, Yamazaki
paragraph [0102] explicitly states that the RAID group 82 can
indeed include all hard disk drives of the same interface
standard, therefore, the interpretation that the quoted portions of
Yamazaki paragraphs [0009] and [0010] meant that each logical
volume itself is made up of hard disk drives with different
interface standards is incorrect. Yamazaki fails to disclose
creating each volume of a RAID as a hybrid mixture RAID
volume.
Id. at 9—10.
The Examiner finds the combination of Yamazaki, Aizman, and
Takaoka teaches limitation (iii). Final Act. 5—8; Ans. 37-41. In particular,
the Examiner finds Yamazaki teaches “to form said volume across drives
from two or more of said groups creating a hybrid mixture Redundant Array
of Independent Disks (RAID) volume.” Final Act. 5—8 (citing Yamazaki H
9, 6, 10, 102, Fig. 12); see also Ans. 37—39. The Examiner finds Takaoka
teaches “(iii) said controller [management controller] is configured to form
said volume across drives from two or more of said groups.” Final Act. 8—9
(citing Takaoka ^fl[ 77—79, 97—99, Fig. 5); see also Ans. 39-42.
5
Appeal 2016-003832
Application 13/085,713
Appellants interpret the teachings of the cited references unreasonably
narrowly and present no persuasive argument that the Examiner’s findings
and claim interpretations regarding the disputed claim limitation is
unreasonable or overbroad. Claim terms in a patent application are given the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253,
1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding limitation (vii), Appellants argue Nagata discusses data
migration between volumes but the Examiner errs in finding Nagata teaches
the disputed limitation. App. Br. 11. According to Appellants:
The abstract of Nagata discusses that “all data is copied from
the migration source volume to the migration destination
volume.” Appellants] point[] out that moving (or migrating) an
entire volume from a source volume to a destination volume
according to the teachings of Nagata does not read on the
above-referenced limitations, where the controller manages data
access to each hybrid mixture RAID volume and moves the
data between the different types of drives of each hybrid
mixture RAID volume based on how often the data is accessed.
Therefore, Nagata fails to cure the defects of Yamazaki,
Takaoka, and Aizman.
Id. at 11.
The Examiner finds Nagata teaches:
[“The prescribed indices are preset based on the type of
migration destination volume (type of disk drive, disk I/O
speed, and RAID configuration and the like). The indices can
be, for example, the total number of accesses per unit time, the
total number of write accesses per unit time, the total number of
read accesses per unit time, the write access cache hit rate, the
read access cache hit rate, the data transfer size per unit time,
the write data transfer size per unit time, or the read data
transfer size per unit time. One or more of these indices is
6
Appeal 2016-003832
Application 13/085,713
selected in accordance with the type of migration destination
volume, and the operation status of the migration destination
volume monitored based on the selected indices.”] [para. 0017].
Final Act. 13—14 (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments and agree,
instead, with the Examiner’s findings. In particular, we find the Examiner’s
findings are reasonable and Appellants’ arguments are cursory. Appellants
present no persuasive argument that the Examiner findings and claim
interpretations regarding the disputed claim limitation (vii) are unreasonable
or overbroad.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claims 9 and 10 which recite the disputed limitations. We also
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 11, and 18—20 as these claims
are not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding dependent claims 4—6 and 8, Appellants argue the cited
references do not teach the controller manages data access to each hybrid
mixture RAID volume by writing frequently accessed data to a first type of
storage drive and writing redundancy data to a second type of storage drive.
App. Br. 15 (citing Fig. 8). According to Appellants, “Yoshida fails to
disclose a controller that manages data access to each hybrid mixture RAID
volume as claimed in [c]laim 4 of the present application” and “Yoshida
fails to cure the defects of Yamazaki, Takaoka, Aizman, and Nagata.” Id.
The Examiner finds the combination of the cited references teach
claim 1, discussed supra, and dependent claim 4. Ans. 42-43. In particular,
the Examiner finds Yamazaki teaches “wherein said controller comprises
firmware to (i) write data to a first type of storage drive and (ii) write
redundancy data to a second type of storage drive.” Id. at 43 (citing
7
Appeal 2016-003832
Application 13/085,713
Yamazaki || 10, 48, 75, 123); see also Ans. 42^43. The Examiner finds
Yoshida teaches: “The determination section 12c determines based on the
access frequency information generated by the generation section lie
whether to write a data item into the storage device 2 a as a writing
destination thereof or to write the data item in a save area provided for
saving data.” Final Act. 22 (citing Yoshida 56, 59, 62) (emphasis
omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings. Moreover, Appellants argue the references
individually whereas the rejection is based on the combination of the
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[0]ne cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on combinations of references” (citations omitted));
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 4—6 and 8.
Regarding dependent claims 12—14, which recite determining said
hybrid mixture of drives for said drive groups, wherein said hybrid mixture
of drives comprises a FC drive and a SATA drive, Appellants argue
dependency to independent claim 10, discussed supra, and also argue the
Examiner errs because:
Mukherjee merely discloses a “RAID controller may
communicate with the physical disks through a bus (e.g., IDE,
SCSI, SATA, SAS, and/or fiber channel, etc.),” but fails to
disclose hybrid mixture RAID volumes, and further fails to
disclose that each RAID volume includes a hybrid mixture of
drives determined for that RAID volume. Mukherjee fails to
cure the defects of Yamazaki, Takaoka, Aizman, and Nagata.
8
Appeal 2016-003832
Application 13/085,713
App. Br. 16.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the cited references teach the
limitations of independent claim 10 (discussed supra), from which claim 12
depends, and Mukherjee teaches hybrid mixture of drives comprises a FC
drive and a SAS drive. Final Act. 26—27 (citing Mukherjee H 3, 35, 36).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings. Moreover, Appellants argue the references
individually. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 10, and claims 11
and 12 for which no separate arguments are presented.
Regarding claim 15, which depends from independent claim 10 and
recites determining a data category for data written/read onto/from said
volumes based on frequency of data and data availability, wherein said data
category comprises two or more of a SAS drive, a FC drive or a SATA drive,
Appellants argue dependency and the cited references “fail to disclose
managing data access to the hybrid mixture RAID volumes based on
frequency of data” and “Yoshida fails to disclose a controller that manages
data access to each hybrid mixture RAID volume as claimed in [cjlaim 15 of
the present application.” App. Br. 17—18.
The Examiner finds the combination of the cited references teaches
the limitations of claim 10, discussed supra, and Mukherjee teaches the
limitations of dependent claim 15. Final Act. 15, 30—31 (citing Mukherjee
113,35-38).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings. Moreover, Appellants argue the references
individually. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 15.
9
Appeal 2016-003832
Application 13/085,713
Regarding claim 16 which depends from independent claim 1 and
recites wherein said controller further comprises a firmware having an
intelligence layer configured to determine a writing speed of said hybrid
mixture RAID volume, Appellants argue dependency and the Examiner errs
by finding Vaid teaches this limitation. App. Br. 18—19. According to
Appellants, “Vaid merely discloses that different types of storage devices
provide different read/write speed, but fails to disclose a firmware that
determines a writing speed of a hybrid mixture RAID volume” and “Vaid
fails to cure the defects of Yamazaki, Takaoka, Aizman, and Nagata.” Id. at
18.
The Examiner finds the combination of the cited references teaches
the limitations of claim 1, discussed supra, and Vaid teaches the limitations
of dependent claim 16. Final Act. 33—34 (citing Vaid 1, 32).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings. Moreover, Appellants argue the references
individually. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 16, 17, and claim
21 which are not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—6 and 8—21.
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10