Ex Parte LI et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201612683902 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/683,902 01107/2010 23373 7590 06/02/2016 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20037 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tak Ho Alex LI 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. Ql 16556 4094 EXAMINER MOSER, BRUCE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2154 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2016 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): PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM sughrue@sughrue.com USPTO@sughrue.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAK HO ALEX LI, CRA VIN ZHENG, and PING SHUM Appeal2014-006670 Application 12/683,902 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, HUNG H. BUI, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-34, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM.2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is BizCONLINE LIMITED. Br. 2. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed January 13, 2014 ("Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed March 21, 2014 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed August 13, 2013 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed January 7, 2010 ("Spec."). Appeal2014-006670 Application 12/683,902 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' Invention Appellants' invention relates to a centralized backup disaster recovery system equipped with a centralized management control console to control disaster recovery operations and to provide a suite of services, including: automatic service transfer (backup), failover, virtualization, snapshot, and autodrill. Spec. 3: 13-23; Abstract. Claims 1, 16, and 23 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' invention, as reproduced below: 1. A centralized management mode backup disaster recovery system, comprising: a centralized control console (104) for performing centralized control on a data container (105), a backup process module (103), storage medium (101 ), and a standby machine (102) through respective control operations, and backup disaster recovery settings and operations of different machines and different platforms are controlled by the centralized control console to implement fully automatic service transfer, failover, automatic virtualization, acknowledgement of snapshot success, snapshot centralized management, and autodrill; a production server (108) installed with software which is host-based and has a plurality of different setting options embedded inside, the production server (108) being responsible for controlling and managing data circulation between the production server and storage medium in unit of data blocks; a backup process module (103) for backing up data to storage space allocated for the production server ( 180) by the storage medium ( 101) through an mirror technique and a synchronous or asynchronous technique or any other backup methods; the storage medium ( 101) for storing data and allocating a logic unit (200) to the production server ( 108) for data storage; 2 Appeal2014-006670 Application 12/683,902 the standby machine ( 102) for storing system data of the production server ( 108) and completing automatic running and setting of the standby machine (102) through the control console (104); and the data container ( 105) for recording operation modes, data information, and command requests of the control console (104), the production server (108), the backup process module (103), the storage medium (101 ), and the standby machine (102) through data condition update. Br. 22-23 (Claims App'x.) (disputed limitations in italics). Examiner's Rejection Claims 1-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Liu (U.S. Publication 2011/0218968 Al; Sept. 8, 2011). Final Act. 2-10. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1, and similarly independent claims 16 and 23, recite, inter alia: "the [1] centralized control console to implement fully [2] automatic service transfer, [3] failover, [ 4] automatic virtualization, [5] acknowledgement of snapshot success, [ 6] snapshot centralized management, and [7] autodrill." (bracketed references added). Liu discloses an enterprise-level data protection system including a main server 107, shown in Figure 1, located at headquarters (disaster recovery site) equipped with an APM (Advanced Protector Manager) suite of products (software), which utilizes an array of servers 103, NAS device 105, a remote storage device 105 and tape storage 106 to manage backup and disaster recovery for networks of remote sites 101-102. 3 Appeal2014-006670 Application 12/683,902 Liu's enterprise-level data protection system, shown in Figure 1, is reproduced below with additional markings for illustration. Liu's Figure 1 shows an enterprise-level data protection system including a main server 105 equipped with an APM suite of products to provide data backup and disaster recovery for remote sites 101-102. Appellants argue Liu' s enterprise-level data protection system is not capable of providing the following elements recited in Appellants' claim 1 (similarly, claims 16 and 23), including: [1] the centralized control console, [2] automatic service transfer, [3] failover, [ 4] automatic virtualization, and [7] autodrill. Br. 15-20. According to Appellants, Liu's APM is not Appellants' claimed "centralized control console" because Liu's APM fails to include the operations of Appellants' claimed "centralized management console[,] e.g., snapshot management, physical to virtual for standby machine, drill configuration, autodrill validation, auditing for the autodrill 4 Appeal2014-006670 Application 12/683,902 and failover." Id. at 17. Appellants dispute the "autodrill" function, but do not explain to us why the Examiner's finding regarding the "autodrill" function is incorrect. See Final Act. 2-3 (citing Liu i-fi-1 41 (FAR), 154 (virtualization), 73 (snapshot management)). We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 2--4. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For additional emphasis, we note Appellants' claim 1, and similarly claims 16 and 23, does not require the "centralized control console" to perform any specific function, but rather requires only that the console implement the functions recited, i.e., capable of performing those functions. Contrary to Appellants' arguments, Liu's APM installed at the main server 107, shown in Figure 1, is a centralized control console, which allows an administrator (user) to control data backup and disaster recovery from remote sites 101- 102. Ans. 2 (citing Liu i130); also see Liu i-fi-158-59, 69 (APM server), 71- 72 (snapshot), 75 (data transfer), 95 (data backup), 112 (network copy), 127 (snapshot management), 148 (directory/file restore), 149 (data fallback), 154 (data virtualization), 177-181 (security /virtualization/self provisioned restore), 227-234 (elimination of redundancy in backups and file systems), 235 (fast application recovery), 262 ( online data restore), 266 (without online data restore), 295 (data migration). As correctly recognized by the Examiner, Liu's APM suite of products (software) installed at the main server 107 also allows the administrator (user) to provide: (1) Appellants' claimed "automatic service transfer" in the form of a FAR (Fast Application Recovery) (Ans. 3 (citing 5 Appeal2014-006670 Application 12/683,902 Liu if 41)); (2) Appellants' claimed "failover" as part of the FAR function to recover from a failure (id. at 3 (citing Liu iii! 38, 41); and (3) Appellants' claimed "automatic virtualization" as described in paragraph 154 of Liu (id. at 4 (citing Liu if 154). For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1, 16, and 23 and their respective dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-22, and 24--34, which Appellants do not argue separately. Br. 20. With respect to dependent claim 9, Appellants argue "Liu is not directed to a standby machine." Br. 20. We disagree and adopt the Examiner's explanation set forth on pages 3--4 of the Examiner's Answer. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-34. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation