Ex Parte Loaiza et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 5, 201813801319 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation