Ex Parte Jibbe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13042697 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
13/042,697 03/08/2011 Mahmoud K. Jibbe 1496.00730/L10-0566US1 7446
24319 7590 03/01/2017
RrnaHonm T imiteH
EXAMINER
4380 Ziegler Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
LIN, HUI-WEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
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 and CHANDAN A. MARATHE
Appeal 2014-009867
Application 13/042,6971
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is LSI Corporation. App. Br.
3.
Appeal 2014-009867
Application 13/042,697
Invention
The claimed invention relates to a method for updating software in a
controller. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A method for updating software in a controller,
comprising the steps of:
(A) comparing a current boot-set to a host boot-set to
determine if a new boot-set is needed;
(B) determining if one or more specifications of a new
boot-set are met; and
(C) updating said controller to said new boot-set, wherein
an agent controls said controller during (i) said updating to
allow said controller to continue to receive and process data
requests during said updating and (ii) when firmware within the
host boot-set and the new boot-set is not available.
Rejections
Claims 1—4, 6—8, 10-15, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Delaney et al. (US 2011/0022828 Al;
Jan. 27, 2011), Narayanaswamy et al. (US 6,275,931 Bl; Aug. 14, 2001),
and Arditti et al. (US 2012/0096252 Al; Apr. 19, 2012).
Claims 5 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Delaney, Narayanaswamy, Arditti, and Barrett et al. (US
2009/0259749 Al; Oct. 15, 2009).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Delaney, Narayanaswamy, Arditti, Aguilar et al. (US
2
Appeal 2014-009867
Application 13/042,697
6,446,203 Bl; Sept. 3, 2002), and Grimes et al. (US 2008/0244331 Al; Oct.
2, 2008).
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Delaney, Narayanaswamy, Arditti, and Addington et al.
(US 2004/0268420 Al; Dec. 30, 2004).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants’ arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our
own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office
Action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set
forth in the Examiner’s Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by
the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for
emphasis as follows.
Independent Claims 1, 11, and 12
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
1,11, and 12 because the combination of Delaney, Narayanaswamy, and
Arditti does not teach or suggest “wherein an agent controls said controller
during [] said updating to allow said controller to continue to receive and
process data requests,” when firmware is not available, as recited in
independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 11 and 12.
App. Br. 8—14; Reply Br. 4—6. Appellants argue neither Arditti nor Delaney
teach or suggest an agent that controls a controller during the update process
when firmware is not available. App. Br. 11. Appellants further argue both
Arditti and Delaney ensure one firmware or the other is in control so no
3
Appeal 2014-009867
Application 13/042,697
agent is needed. Id. Appellants also assert the Examiner’s reliance on
Delaney as having an agent is in error, because Delaney’s redirect is not the
same as the claimed agent, which controls the controller during a firmware
update. Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Delaney teaches a non-
disruptive method for updating firmware in a controller of a storage
subsystem so that the updating is transparent to a host system that sends a
host request for data located in the storage subsystem. Ans. 4. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, the “first controller inter-controller
messaging and RDMA 218 in Delaney is the agent which controls the
controller to allow the controller to continue to receive and process data
requests during the updating.” Ans. 5 (citing Delaney 127). The
Examiner also finds, and we agree:
While the firmware of the first controller is updated (i.e. “when
firmware within the host boot-set and the new boot-set is not
available”), the first controller inter-controller messaging and
RDMA 218 (located on the first controller, see Fig. 1) redirects
data requests from the host to the second controller. The second
controller processes the data request and returns the results to the
first controller, which then returns the results to the host that
made the data request (see paragraphs [0026] and [0027] of
Delaney). The first controller inter-controller messaging and
RDMA 218 is an agent allows the first controller to continue to
receive and process data requests during the firmware update of
the first controller.
Ans. 5—6 (citing Delaney H 26—27; Fig. 1).
Contrary to Appellants’ assertions (Reply Br. 4), the Examiner’s
Answer directly addresses where the claimed agent is shown in Delaney.
See Ans. 5—6. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Delaney,
4
Appeal 2014-009867
Application 13/042,697
Narayanaswamy, and Arditti teaches or suggests the contested claim
limitations. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent
claims 1,11, and 12.
Dependent Claims 2—10 and 13—20
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive
arguments with respect to dependent claims 2—10 and 13—20. See App. Br.
14—22. Appellants merely assert the same arguments made for the
independent claims, note the additional limitations recited in the dependent
claims, and then assert that the cited art does not teach or suggest the recited
limitations. Such assertions fail to sufficiently raise a separate issue of
patentability. Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014); In re Lovin,
652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We conclude that the Board has
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require applicants to articulate more
substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated
separately.”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims
2-10 and 13-20.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20.
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
5