10702257 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 31, 2011)

Ex Parte Land

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesOct 31, 2011

10702257 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 31, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte KRIS LAND ____________________ Appeal 2009-014727 Application 10/702,257 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before THU A. DANG, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-014727 Application 10/702,257 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2007). Claims 11 and 18 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2007). We affirm. A. INVENTION According to Appellant, the invention relates to data distribution in a data storage system and other distributed data handling systems (Spec. 1, ll. 4-6). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 and is exemplary and is reproduced below: 1. A data distribution system for distributing data among components of a data processing system including hosts and peripheral devices, the system comprising: one or more crossbar switches each having a plurality of serial connections, each crossbar switch being dynamically configurable to form connection joins between serial connections to direct serial transmissions from one or more incoming serial connections to one or more outgoing serial connections; and a plurality of access ports each having one or more serial connections for connecting to one or more crossbar switches, a processor, a memory, and an internal bus, wherein each of a first subset of the plurality of access ports further includes one or more host adapters and/or peripheral device adapters for connecting to one or more hosts Appeal 2009-014727 Application 10/702,257 3 and/or peripheral devices, and each is connected to at least one crossbar switch, and wherein each of a second subset of the plurality of access ports includes one or more input serial connections and one or more output serial connections connected to one or more crossbar switches, and is dedicated to perform data processing functions including one or more of RAID parity encoding and decoding, data encryption and decryption, data compression and decompression, and redundancy algorithms. C. REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Rangan US 2004/0148376 A1 Jul. 29, 2004 (filed on Jun. 30, 2003) Solomon US 2004/0215868 Oct. 28, 2004 (filed on Mar. 29, 2002) Claims 1-8, 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the teachings of Solomon. Claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Solomon in view of Rangan. II. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding that Solomon discloses “a plurality of access ports,” wherein “each of a first subset of the plurality of access ports further includes one or more host adapters and/or peripheral device adapters” and “each of a second subset of the plurality of access ports Appeal 2009-014727 Application 10/702,257 4 includes one or more input serial connections and one or more output serial connections connected to one or more crossbar switches” (claim 1)? III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Solomon 1) Solomon comprises a storage processor for a block storage RAID (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) array which services disk storage block requests from one or more hosts (p. 2, ¶ [0008]). 2) A storage device comprises a DMA/XOR engine combined in an ASIC with a crossbar switch 38 that links FE and BE buses 34 and 35 with a single user memory 39 (p. 3, ¶ [0035]), wherein data is carried by the first bus 34 through front end (FE) interface 28 connected to requesting processes 10 and by the second bus 35 through a back end (BE) interface 29 connected to media devices 17 (Fig. 2C). Appeal 2009-014727 Application 10/702,257 5 3) Solomon’s Fig. 3 is reproduced below: Solomon’s Fig. 3 discloses a storage processor 15 including a FE interface 47 to support connection to the requesting processes 10 and a BE interface 48 to support connection to the media devices 17, wherein a backplane communication device 50 serves as a data conduit for supporting communications among the devices and a data controller/translator 60 governs specific data transfer and translation operations which involves the calculation or processing of error checking and/or error correcting data (p. 4, ¶ [0036]). Appeal 2009-014727 Application 10/702,257 6 4) The backplane communications device 50 consists of one or more buses, switches such as crossbar switches, direct connections, and combinations thereof (p. 4, ¶ [0037]). VI. ANALYSIS Claims 1-8, 14 and 15 Appellant contends that “the I/O bridges 43 and 37 [of Solomon] are not the claimed first subset because they lack adapters for connecting to hosts and/or peripheral devices” (App. Br. 4) and thus “Solomon fails to teach or suggests the claimed first subset of access ports” (App. Br. 5). Further, Appellant contends that Appellant’s claim 1 “requires each of the second subset of access ports to include ‘one or more input serial connections and one or more output serial connections connected to one or more cross bar switches’” but “[t]here is no description in Solomon that the DMA/XOR engine within the ASIC 38 has such a connection relationship with the crossbar switch” (App. Br. 6). The Examiner, however, finds that Solomon “clearly teaches wherein each of a first subset of the plurality of access ports further includes one or more host adapters (FE 47) and/or peripheral device adapters (BE 48) for connecting to one or more hosts (10 couple to FE 47) and/or peripheral devices (Media devices coupled to BE 48), and each is connected to at least one cross bar switch (Crossbar switch in 50)” (Ans. 13) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further finds that “Solomon teaches a data controller translator 60 that provides a second subset of ports through a crossbar switch and is dedicated to perform data processing functions including one or more Appeal 2009-014727 Application 10/702,257 7 of RAID parity encoding and decoding, data encryption and decryption, data compression and decompression, and redundancy algorithms” (Ans. 16) (emphasis omitted). We find no error in the Examiner’s findings. Solomon discloses requesting processes 10 and media devices 17 (FF 2), wherein FE interface 47 supports connection to the requesting processes 10 and BE interface 48 supports connection to the media devices 17, and a backplane communication device 50 serves as a data conduit for supporting communications among the devices (FF 3). The backplane communications device 50 consists of a crossbar switch (FF 4). We find Solomon’s FE interface 47 to comprise an adapter for connecting to the requesting processes 10 and find Solomon’s BE interface 48 to comprise an adapter for connecting to the media devices 17. We further find Solomon’s backplane communications device 50 to comprise a crossbar switch connected to the devices. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Solomon discloses a first subset of access ports that includes a host adapter and/or a peripheral device adapter for connection to a host and/or peripheral devices, wherein each is connected to a crossbar switch, as required by representative claim 1. Further, Solomon discloses a RAID system (FF 1) which comprises a data controller/translator 60 that governs specific data transfer and translation operations which involve the calculation or processing of error checking and/or error correcting data, the data controller/translator 60 being connected to the backplane communications device 50 (FF 3). We find such RAID system for processing error checking and error correcting data to comprise data processing functions including at least one of RAID parity Appeal 2009-014727 Application 10/702,257 8 encoding and decoding, data encryption and decryption, data compression and decompression, and redundancy algorithms. Further, we find such data controller/translator 60 to comprise a second subset of access ports that includes an input serial connection and an output serial connection connected to a crossbar switch. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Solomon discloses a second subset of access ports that includes an input serial connection and an output serial connection connected to a crossbar switch that is dedicated to perform data processing functions including at least one of RAID parity encoding/decoding, data encryption/decryption, data compression/decompression, and redundancy algorithm, as required by representative claim 1. We thus find no error with the Examiner’s finding representative claim 1 anticipated by Solomon. Since Appellant does not provide arguments for claims 2-8, 14, and 15 separate from those of claim 1, claims 2-8, 14, and 15 fall with claim 1. Claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 Appellant contends that “it would not have been obvious to combine Solomon and Ragan [sic]” since “the overall structure of the Solomon and Ragan [sic] devices are significantly different” (App. Br. 6). However, the Examiner points out that “[b]oth Solomon and Ragan [sic] are related to processing information for data storage devices” (Ans. 17) and concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Solomon and Rangan to obtain the economy of scale and greater system efficiency” (id.). Appeal 2009-014727 Application 10/702,257 9 We agree with the Examiner’s explicit motivation that combining the references would be obvious. The Supreme Court has stated 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.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). We conclude that such combination is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Id. The skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420-21. Thus, we conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 unpatentable over Solomon and Rangan. VI. CONCLUSION AND DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and of claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED peb