Ex Parte MUPPIRALADownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 12, 201612851558 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/851,558 08/06/2010 Kishore Kumar MUPPIRALA 56436 7590 01/14/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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. 82258598 1960 EXAMINER BETIT, JACOB F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01114/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KISHORE KUMAR MUPPIRALA Appeal2014-000011 Application 12/851,558 Technology Center 2100 Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-000011 Application 12/851,558 STATEMENT OF CASE 1 Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appellant invented systems and methods that provide an application based quality of service ("QoS") by classifying application commands. Spec. ,-r 11. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: receiving an application command associated with a classification parameter, wherein the application command and classification parameter is generated by an application in a first device; determining, \~1ith the first device, a classification value based on the classification parameter; associating, with the first device, the classification value with the application command; and sending the application command and the classification value to a second device for processing. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Powell US 2010/0180066 Al Voigt et al. US 2008/0162735 Al July 15, 2010 (filed Jan. 13, 2009) July 3, 2008 1 Our decision makes reference to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Apr. 30, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 09, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 09, 2013) and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Jan. 08, 2013). 2 Appeal2014-000011 Application 12/851,558 REJECTIONS Claims 1-10 and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Voigt. Final Act. 3-8. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Voigt and Powell. Final Act. 9-10. ISSUES The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-10 and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Voigt turns on (1) whether Voigt discloses "receiving an application command associated with a classification parameter" and "determining ... a classification value based on the classification parameter," (2) whether the claimed method is performed in Voigt "in a first device," and (3) whether Voigt teaches away from the claimed method being performed "in a first device," as recited by independent claim 1 and similarly recited by independent claims 6 and 10. The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Voigt and Powell turns on whether Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 10 are found persuasive. ANALYSIS Claims 1-10 and 12-15 rejected under 35 USC§ 102(b) as anticipated by Voigt Appellant contends that Voigt discloses that "all commands from a server or an application ... will be assigned a particular group number and a priority number." App. Br. 9 (citing Voigt i-fi-18, 16, 30, 38) (emphasis omitted); see Reply Br. 4---6. Accordingly, Appellant contends that Voigt discloses "mapping an application directly to a particular priority number and a particular group number," but fails to disclose "mapping a 3 Appeal2014-000011 Application 12/851,558 classification parameter included in the application command itself to a classification value." Id. at 9-10. We disagree with Appellant. As found by the Examiner, the term "classification parameter" encompasses application commands such as data read/write requests, and further encompasses an ID that identifies the application generating the application command. Ans. 3 (citing Spec. i-fi-f 14, 16, 43). Voigt discloses "a method for extending the sophistication of QoS management through a specific use of the [Small Computer System Interface (SCSI)] group number relative to the SCSI priority field." Voigt i18. Voigt further discloses that "host computers run different operating systems with multiple different applications simultaneously executing on each host computer" and, thus, "hosts make I/O requests ... to storage devices." Id. i1 16. Each SCSI command designates the initiator, the target, a priority field, and a group number field. Id. i130. An administrator or operating system can assign particular group numbers to each host or application, and the group number is included in the I/O commands from the host or application to the target. Id. i138. Although Appellant agrees that Voigt discloses this mapping of the application commands to a particular group number (App. Br. 9), Appellant does not provide any persuasive evidence or rationale to distinguish Voigt's group number from the recited classification parameter, or Voigt's including of the group numbers in the I/O commands from the host or application. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. Appellant further argues that Voigt discloses "a substitution or change occurs at the storage device, not at the host device." App. Br. 10 (emphasis omitted); see Reply Br. 6-7. We disagree with Appellant. As found by the 4 Appeal2014-000011 Application 12/851,558 Examiner, Voigt expressly discloses that the I/O commands are generated at the initiator and are sent to the target, such as a storage device. Ans. 2-3 (citing Voigt i-fi-130-31). Appellant's argument is limited to an embodiment that describes modifying application commands (Voigt i-fi-f 11-14), whereas the Examiner has relied on an embodiment that generates an application command at the initiator to be sent to the target. See Ans. 2-3 (citing Voigt i-fi-1 30-31 ); see also Voigt i-f 16 ("hosts make I/O requests (example, read and write requests) to storage devices"). Because Appellant's argument does not rebut the findings made by the Examiner, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred. Appellant also argues that Voigt "appears to teach away from associating, with the first device, the classification value with the application command ... by instead utilizing a particular priority field and/or the group number field to modify priority of a I/O request once received at a storage device (e.g., a second device)." App. Br. 10. We disagree with Appellant. First, as discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellant that Voigt fails to disclose assigning a group number at the first device. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Voigt teaches away from such a feature because we do not agree with Appellant that Voigt, in fact, does not disclose the feature. Second, Appellant does not direct us to any evidence that Voigt discourages or discredits the generation of an application command and classification parameter at a first device. "A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." Ricoh 5 Appeal2014-000011 Application 12/851,558 Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Comp., Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention from amongst options available to the ordinarily skilled artisan, and the reference does not discredit or discourage investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Absent any evidence that Voigt discourages or discredits the generation of an application command and classification parameter at a first device, we are not persuaded by Appellant that Voigt teaches away from such a feature. Claim 11 rejected under 35 US. C. § 103 (a) as obvious over Voigt and Powell Appellant contends that dependent claim 11 depends from independent claim 10, and does not separately argue dependent claim 11. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 7. We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive for independent claim 10 for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 11 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to independent claim 10. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-15. DECISION To summarize, the rejection of claims 1-15 is affirmed. 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