Ex Parte Koning et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 20, 2013

10762984 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2013)

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.
10/762,984 01/21/2004 G. Paul Koning 3721.1004-004
(EQLC-P01-0
5998
21005 7590 02/20/2013
HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C.
530 VIRGINIA ROAD
P.O. BOX 9133
CONCORD, MA 01742-9133
EXAMINER
DOAN, DUC T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2013 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 G. PAUL KONING, PETER C. HAYDEN, and PAULA LONG
____________

Appeal 2010-008914
Application 10/762,984
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-10, 12, 14-21 and 231. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Claims 11, 13, 22 and 24 have been cancelled and are not on appeal.
Appeal 2010-008914
Application 10/762,984

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to systems for managing responses to
requests from a plurality of clients for access to a set of resources and for
providing a storage area network (SAN) that more efficiently responds to
client load changes by migrating data blocks while providing continuous
data access. (Abstract.)

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites:
1. An apparatus for resource migration, comprising a storage
system having
a plurality of storage servers with a set of resources partitioned
thereon, said storage servers having a load monitor process
capable of communicating with other load monitor processes
for generating a measure of loading on respective ones of the
plurality of servers;
a resource migration process for transferring a resource from
one of said plurality of servers to another of said plurality of
servers in response to said measure of loading;
a write-detect process which:
(i) detects when a resource write request applies to a resource
that is in the process of being moved from a first server to a
second server, and which in response to such resource write
request writes copies of the resource of both of said first and
second server; and
(ii) in response to a write failure on the second server, restarts
the migration process for the resource to ensure that the write
request is propagated to the second server.

Appeal 2010-008914
Application 10/762,984

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 14-21 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blumenau et al. (U.S. 2004/0080558,
Apr. 29, 2004; “Blumenau”). (Ans. 3-8.)2
Claims 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Blumenau in view of Applicants’ admitted prior art
(“APA”) (Spec. 3, ll. 16-28). (Ans. 8-9.)

ISSUES
Appellants argue on pages 7 through 9 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in
error.3 These arguments present us with the following issues:
1) Did the Examiner err in finding that Blumenau teaches “a resource
migration process for transferring a resource from one of said
plurality of servers to another of said plurality of servers in
response to said measure of loading,” as recited in claim 1?
2) Did the Examiner err in finding that Blumenau teaches “a write-
detect process which: . . . in response to a write failure on the
second server, restarts the migration process for the resource to
ensure that the write request is propagated to the second server,” as
recited in claim 1?

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on Feb.
22, 2010.
3 Throughout this opinion were refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed on
Dec. 17, 2009.
Appeal 2010-008914
Application 10/762,984

4
Appellants argue on pages 9 through 10 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. These
arguments present us with the following issue:
3) Did the Examiner err in finding that Blumenau teaches “a routing
table for tracking resources maintained on the system,” as recited
in claim 8?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusion. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. However we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding claims 1 and 8 for emphasis as follows.

The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
1) First Issue
Appellants contend that Blumenau does not disclose “that the server
processes communicate with each other to generate a measure of loading on
the respective servers . . . ,” as Appellants contend is required by claim 1,
because a state table pointed to by the Examiner does not maintain “data
indicative of load.” (App. Br. 8.) Claim 1 does not recite “to generate a
measure of loading” as Appellants contend. Instead, claim 1 recites “a
resource migration process for transferring a resource from one of said
plurality of servers to another of said plurality of servers in response to said
Appeal 2010-008914
Application 10/762,984

5
measure of loading” (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that
Blumenau’s disclosure of, for example, migrating data because a system is
“approaching its performance limit . . . or for storage capacity reasons”
(Ans. 4, 13 citing Blumenau ¶ 64) satisfies the limitation of “in response to
said measure of loading” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree with the Examiner that this
limitation is met by Blumenau.
2) Second Issue
Appellants contend that Blumenau discloses “checking to see whether
each specific data write operation was actually successful,” but does not
disclose “restarting an entire migration process.” (App. Br. 8.) We agree
with the Examiner (Ans. 5, 11) that Blumenau’s disclosure that “the DBMS
will reissue the [write] request[]” (Blumenau ¶42) is not merely “checking”
as Appellants’ contend, but instead satisfies “a write-detect process which: .
. . restarts the migration process for the resource” as is recited in claim 1.
Appellants further contend that the DBMS reissuing the write request
does not satisfy the “restarts the migration process” requirement of claim 1
because “Applicants’ restart of a migration process is transparent at the
DBMS or other application level.” (App. Br. 7.) However, as correctly
noted by the Examiner, claim 1 does not require transparency. (Ans. 11-12.)
Here, the Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of
representative claim 1. Nonetheless, as additional supporting evidence that
this limitation is satisfied, Blumenau states, “[b]ecause the migration is
transparent to the application . . .” (Blumenau ¶47.)
With respect to Appellants’ other contentions regarding this limitation
of claim 1, we agree with the Examiner’s analysis and determination that
Appeal 2010-008914
Application 10/762,984

6
these other contentions are not persuasive. (Ans. 5, 10-14.) Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that this limitation is met by Blumenau.
As explained supra with respect to highlighted findings and
arguments regarding issues 1 and 2 presented for claim 1, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection.
3) Third Issue
Appellants contend that Blumenau does not disclose the limitations of
claim 8 because “there is no mention, suggestion, or teaching in Blumenau
that this state table is used to perform any routing function . . . .” (App. Br.
10 (emphasis omitted).) However, claim 8 recites “a routing table for
tracking resources maintained on the system,” not a “routing function” as
Appellants’ contend (App. Br. 10). We agree with the Examiner’s
explanation and analysis (Ans. 6, 16-17) supporting the determination that
the limitations of claim 8 are met by Blumenau. Additional supporting
evidence is found in Blumenau’s disclosure that “disk/logical volume 201”
maintained by the state table “can correspond to a physical storage device
(e.g., a disk drive) within the storage system, or may correspond to a virtual
storage location . . . .” (Blumenau ¶¶35.)
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and, therefore, we sustain that
rejection.

The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Regarding Appellants’ contentions with respect to claim 5, Appellants
do not provide additional arguments with sufficient specificity so claim 5
Appeal 2010-008914
Application 10/762,984

7
falls with claim 1. (App. Br. 11.) For the same reasons as provided for
claim 1, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and stated conclusions and,
therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 5.

The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Regarding Appellants’ contentions with respect to claim 6, Appellants
do not provide additional arguments with sufficient specificity so claim 6
falls with claim 1. (App. Br. 9.) For the same reasons as provided for claim
1, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and stated conclusions and,
therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 6.

The rejection of claims 2-4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14-21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
103(a)
With respect to the rejection of claims 2-4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14-21 and 23
Appellants allow those claims to fall with claim 1 by relying on the same
arguments presented for the patentability of claim 1. (App. Br. 9, 10.)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-4, 7, 9, 10, 12,
14-21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
Based on the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1 and 8 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Blumenau. Additionally, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claim 5 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Blumenau in view of APA. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appeal 2010-008914
Application 10/762,984

8
rejection of claims 1, 5 and 8 and of claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14-21 and
23, falling therewith.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10, 12, 14-21 and 23.
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).

AFFIRMED

ke