Ex Parte Loaiza et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 5, 2018

13801319 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/801,319 03/13/2013 Juan R. Loaiza
42425 7590 10/10/2018
HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
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.
50277-3984 9863
EXAMINER
DUDEK JR, EDWARD J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2136
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/10/2018 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUAN R. LOAIZA, KOTHANDA UMAMAGESW ARAN,
DAVID FRIEDMAN, JIA SHI, ZUOYU TAO, and ALEX TSUKERMAN
Appeal2018-001493
Application 13/801,319
Technology Center 2100
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1,2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 14, 16, 17, 19-23, 27, and 28. Claims 2, 5,
11-13, 15, 18, and 24--26 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action (Final Act.) mailed
August 30, 2016, the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed May 30, 2017, the
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed September 25, 2017, and the Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) filed November 27, 2017.
2 The real party in interest is listed as Oracle International Corporation.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-001493
Application 13/801,319
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to "techniques and approaches for
making mirrored data current on a storage device that was down during a
staggered downtime." See Spec. ,r 8.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis:
1. A method, comprising steps of:
from a storage device client, a first storage device
receiving one or more requests indicating to retain data blocks
in a non-volatile cache of said first storage device sent by the
storage device client to resynchronize a second storage device
that will be offline;
in response to receiving one or more requests to write a
plurality of data blocks:
said first storage device writing said plurality of data
blocks to said non-volatile cache of said first storage device,
wherein a primary store of said first storage device stores said
plurality of data blocks, wherein said first storage device and
said second storage device belong to a mirrored set of storage
devices for mirroring data that includes said plurality of data
blocks;
tracking said plurality of data blocks as dirty data blocks
that have not been written to the second storage device;
in response receiving one or more requests indicating to
retain data blocks, said first storage device retaining said
plurality of data blocks in said nonvolatile cache of said first
storage device; and
resynchronizing said second storage device using said
plurality of data blocks retained in said non-volatile cache of
said first storage device.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Petruzzo
Crockett
Bates
Ehrlich
US 2006/0271605 Al
US 2009/0182960 Al
US 2010/0199042 Al
US 2010/0205367 Al
2
Nov. 30, 2006
July 16, 2009
Aug. 5, 2010
Aug. 12, 2010
Appeal2018-001493
Application 13/801,319
The Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 27, and 28 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Crockett, Petruzzo, and
Bates. Final Act. 3-14.
Claims 7, 8, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Crockett, Petruzzo, Bates, and Ehrlich. Final Act. 14--17.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER CROCKETT,
PETRUZZO, AND BATES
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 27, and 28 are argued
as a group. Appeal Br. 4--7. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). For independent claim 1, the Examiner finds
Crockett discloses many of its limitations, including receiving a request
indicating to retain data blocks in a cache of the first storage device sent by
the storage device client and in response to receiving the request, the first
storage device retaining the data blocks in the cache. Final Act. 3--4. The
Examiner turns to Petruzzo to teach using non-volatile cache and to Bates to
teach retaining updates in cache for resynchronizing a second storage device
that will be offline with another storage device. Final Act. 4--5 ( citing
Petruzzo ,r,r 29, 42--43 and Bates ,r,r 148-151).
Appellants argue Crockett does not teach a storage device retaining
data blocks in a cache in response to a request from a storage client
indicating to retain the data blocks to resynchronize a second storage device.
Appeal Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2. Specifically, Appellants contend Crockett
"fails to disclose that the host creates the side file and initiates updates to the
side file to resynchronize a second storage device that will be offline, much
less initiate the updates to the side file in response to a request from a
3
Appeal2018-001493
Application 13/801,319
storage device client indicating to retain data blocks to resynchronize."
Appeal Br. 6. Appellants also assert there is no reason to combine Petruzzo
with Bates and Crockett because Crockett stores updates in a side file and
thus, there purportedly "would be no point in being able to respond to a
request to retain updates to later resynchronize the second storage controller
after it [was] brought offline because the updates are already being stored in
the side file." Appeal Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 3.
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Crockett, Petruzzo, and Bates collectively would have taught or
suggested "in response receiving one or more requests indicating to retain
data blocks [in a cache of said first storage device sent by the storage device
client to resynchronize a second storage device that will be offline ], said first
storage device retaining said plurality of data blocks in said nonvolatile
cache of said first storage device"?
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1. Crockett shows primary storage controller
2 and primary storage 4 (e.g., a first storage device) and secondary storage
controller 14 and secondary storage 12 (e.g., a second storage device)
communicate through host 26 (e.g., a storage device client). Crockett
,r,r 1 7-21, Fig. 1. The Examiner explains Crockett is a storage system with
primary volumes and secondary volumes in a mirrored relationship.
Ans. 17. Mirrored relationship 22 involves using side file 24 in cache 18 to
4
Appeal2018-001493
Application 13/801,319
buffer (e.g., retain) updates made to the primary volume (e.g., 6) and
transferring the updates to the secondary volume (e.g., 10) to mirror.
Crockett ,r,r 19-20, Fig. 1. Given Appellants define "resynchronize" to
mean "an operation that brings up-to-date or otherwise in-synch mirrored
data stored on a storage device that has become out-of-date or out-of-synch,
by writing to the storage device at least a portion of mirrored data stored on
another storage device" (Spec. ,r 14), Crockett's mirrored relationship
between primary storage volumes and secondary storage volumes
resynchronizes a second storage device with a primary storage device.
Crockett further explains System Data Mover (SDM) 28, located
within host 26, controls the initial copy of primary storage volumes 6 to
secondary storage volumes 10 as well as indicates to primary storage
controller 2 when to create sidefile 24 entries for updates. Crockett ,r 20,
Fig. 1, cited in Ans. 17. As the Examiner explains, "[ t ]he sidefile is used to
store updates made to the primary volume," and "[a] request is sent to the
storage controller to create the sidefile, which equates to the claimed
'request that indicates to retain the data block in the persistent cache'[3J_ (see
[0020]- SDM indicates when to create the sidefile)[.]" Ans. 17. Appellants
also recognize that a host requests creation of the side file and the host
indicates when to create entries in the file for updates. Appeal Br. 5 ( citing
Crockett ,r 20).
Thus, contrary to Appellants' assertions (Appeal Br. 5---6), Crockett
suggests a client (e.g., host 26's SDM) provides a request to a first storage
device indicating to retain data blocks in cache ( e.g., SDM indicates to
3 Claim 1 recites "to retain data blocks in a non-volatile cache" (Appeal
Br. 2 (Claims App.)) rather than using the "persistent cache" as discussed.
5
Appeal2018-001493
Application 13/801,319
storage device's controller when to create updated entries in sidefile 24), and
in response to the received request, retaining data blocks ( e.g., updates) in
the cache as claim 1 requires for resynchronizing ( e.g., mirroring) its
updated data with a second storage device (e.g., secondary device's storage
volumes).
But, as noted by the Examiner (Ans. 17), Crockett does not teach
resynchronizing a second storage device that will be offline and so the
rejection turns to Bates. Ans. 17-18. To the extent Appellants contend
Crockett alone fails to teach "to resynchronize a second storage device that
will be offline" (Appeal Br. 2 (Claims App.) (emphasis added)) as recited
(Appeal Br. 5---6), the argument attacks Crockett individually and is not
persuasive. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the phrase "a second storage device that will be offline,"
Appellants argue Bates fails to teach this recitation. Appeal Br. 6 (stating
Bates fails to teach this feature); Reply Br. 2 ( citing Bates ,r,r 148-151 ).
Appellants argue that copying data that has changed to a mirrored device
does not teach retaining changed data in cache to resynchronize a mirrored
device that will be offline. Reply Br. 2 (discussing Bates ,r,r 148-149). We
are not persuaded.
First, this argument attacks Bates individually without considering
what the combination of Crockett and Bates collectively suggests. Second,
Bates discusses mirroring module 600 (Bates ,r,r 144--14 7, cited in Ans. 17)
that issues read and write to clouds ( e.g., storage devices). Bates ,r 148.
More specifically, Bates teaches storage devices can be offline (e.g., the
cloud is offline due to failure) and uses CSI (Cloud Storage Interface) 242 to
determine when a storage device comes back online and to notify mirroring
6
Appeal2018-001493
Application 13/801,319
module 600 to begin resynchronizing. Bates ,r,r 148-149. Bates further
describes an error handling technique ( see Bates "Error Handling" title
between paragraphs 14 7 and 148) involving resynchronizing by tracking and
copying only the modified data (e.g., updates) to the recovered, mirrored
side. Bates ,r 149. As such, Bates suggests to one skilled in the art retaining
changed data, such as an approach like Crockett's, to resynchronize an
offline device mirrored when the offline device comes online. Such a
combination would have predictably resulted and yielded no more than "said
first storage device retaining said plurality of data blocks in said non-volatile
cache of said first storage device" and "to resynchronize a second storage
device that will be offline" as recited in claim 1.
Bates also provides a reason with some rational underpinning to
combine its teaching with Crockett and to support an obviousness
conclusion. Final Act. 5 (citing Bates ,r,r 148-149); Ans. 18-19 (citing
Bates ,r,r 144--149). Bates discusses mirroring data between multiple storage
systems (Bates ,r,r 144--14 7, cited in Ans. 1 7), similar to Crockett, and
teaches to resynchronize a recovered storage device that goes offline when it
comes online by mirroring the device using only the data updates that
occurred while the storage device was offline (Bates ,r,r 148-149). The
Examiner further explains, although Crockett does not discuss a storage
device that goes offline, failed storage devices (e.g., going offline) are
common knowledge. Ans. 17. Appellants have not challenged this finding
(see Reply Br.), and we presume this noticed fact is well known.
As such, Bates teaches a technique that improves on Crockett's
mirroring storage device process, such as when storage devices are offline,
by resynchronizing the storage devices upon recovery with just the updated
7
Appeal2018-001493
Application 13/801,319
data entries that occur when a storage device is offline. Given the above
advantage, the Examiner states one skilled in the art would have recognized
retaining such data blocks in Crockett's sidefile until the failed storage
device comes online for purpose of resynchronizing in a more efficient
manner. See Ans. 17-18; see also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 417 (2007) (indicating "if a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill."). We therefore
disagree the record does not provide a reason with a rational basis to
combine Bates with Crockett (Appeal Br. 6-7) or combining the references
would be "pointless" (Reply Br. 3).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17,
19, 22, 23, 27, and 28, which are not separately argued.
THE REMAINING REJECTION
The remaining rejection is not separately argued. See generally
Appeal Br. We sustain the rejection of claims 7, 8, 20, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Crockett, Petruzzo, Bates, and Ehrlich for reasons
similar to those above when addressing claims 1 and 14, from which these
claims depend directly or indirectly.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 14, 16, 17,
19-23, 27 and 28 are under§ 103.
8
Appeal2018-001493
Application 13/801,319
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9