Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

12683902 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

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