Ex Parte Pafumi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 3, 201512849655 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/849,655 08/03/2010 James A. Pafumi AUS920100111US1 8272 64002 7590 09/03/2015 J.B. KRAFT ATTORNEY 710 COLORADO # 5-C AUSTIN, TX 78701 EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2444 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/03/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAMES A. PAFUMI, VEENA GANTI, MORGAN J. ROSAS, and VASU VALLABHANENI ____________ Appeal 2013-006654 Application 12/849,6551 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2013-006654 Application 12/849,655 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to alternative migration of a logical partition (“LPAR”) from one server system to another when either or both of the server systems cannot access a Storage Area Network (SAN). Abstract. Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for transferring a logical partition (LPAR) from source server controlled computer system to a destination server controlled computer system over a connecting network comprising: determining if said source server system and said destination server system have access to the same storage area network (SAN); if said source and destination server system have access to the same SAN, then: transmitting a logical partition (LPAR) over said connecting network from said source server system to said destination server system, and transmitting all data storage supporting said LPAR from said source server system to said destination server system over said SAN; if said source and destination server system do not have access to the same SAN, then: creating a mirror image copy of said all external data storage supporting said LPAR, transmitting said mirror image copy of said all external data storage supporting said LPAR to local storage supporting said destination server system, wherein said mirror image copy of said data storage is now available to support said LPAR which can now be transmitted, and then separately transmitting said logical partition (LPAR) over said connecting network from said source server system to said destination server system. Appeal 2013-006654 Application 12/849,655 3 App. Br. 17 (Claims Appendix). THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 8, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over BAILEY ET AL., IBM POWERVM LIVE PARTITION MOBILITY (2nd ed. 2009) (hereafter referred to as “Bailey”), in view of Armstrong et al., US 2006/0242442 A1, Oct. 26, 2006 (hereafter referred to as “Armstrong”). Final Act. 5–10. Claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bailey, Armstrong, and ISCSI (INTERNET SMALL COMPUTER SYSTEM INTERFACE), http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/iSCSI (last visited Feb. 23, 2012) (hereafter referred to as “SearchStorage.com”). Final Act. 10–13. ANALYSIS Appellants present arguments asserting error. As discussed below, we are not persuaded of error. Appellants argue Bailey does not teach the following limitation (the “disputed limitation”): if said source and destination server system do not have access to the same SAN, then: creating a mirror image copy of said all external data storage supporting said LPAR, transmitting said mirror image copy of said all external data storage supporting said LPAR to local storage supporting said destination server system, wherein said mirror image copy of said data storage is now available to support said LPAR which can now be transmitted, and then separately transmitting said logical partition (LPAR) over said connecting network from said source server system to said destination server system. Appeal 2013-006654 Application 12/849,655 4 App. Br. 11–12. Further, Appellants argue Armstrong “is concerned with the creation of a virtualized time base which would be used in the handling of LPARS among other time base functions” and does not “in any way suggest copying a mirror image of all external data storage supporting the LPAR, or separately transporting the created mirror image to local storage at the destination of the LPAR, separate from the subsequent transmission of the LPAR.” App. Br. 13–14 (citing Armstrong ¶¶ 57, 66, 67). The Examiner finds Bailey teaches claim 1 except it does not expressly teach the storage network is a storage area network (“SAN”) and does not expressly teach the disputed limitation. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner takes Official Notice “that a SAN was a well-known type of storage network” and “it would have been obvious to have the storage network being a SAN.” Id. at 6; accord Spec. 2 (“This external storage system and network has been standardized by the computer industry as the Storage Area Network (SAN) technology.”). Regarding the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds Bailey teaches a validation procedure to verify migration can be performed successfully. Final Act. 7 (citing Bailey 13, § 1.6.2). The Examiner also finds the servers need access to the same external storage subsystem to perform the Bailey method. Id. (citing Bailey 7). The Examiner finds Armstrong teaches transferring partitions over a network where data can be transmitted, such as the Internet, and packaging partition configuration data to be sent to the destination. Final Act. 7 (citing ¶¶ 66, 67, 116). According to the Examiner: [f]urther, it appears that each of the steps of the instant claim are performed in a manner analogous to the active migration in Appeal 2013-006654 Application 12/849,655 5 a case where the migration validation is successful (where the source and destination server have access to the same network), where the only modification from the disclosure of Bailey in the transfer of the partition to a different network involves the creation of a mirror copy (or package) and transfer of the mirror copy as part of steps a and b of the active migration, where performing such a modification, as detailed above, would allow the migration to occur substantially in accordance with the procedure of Bailey across different networks. Final Act. 9–10. In addition, the Examiner finds three reasons why Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive (Ans. 8–9): First, the disputed limitation is only performed when the source and destination servers are on different networks. When the source and destination servers are on the same network, the method is “substantially similar to that of Bailey, where the only modification necessary is to provide a SAN (which is not traversed by Appellants).” Id. at 8. Second: Appellant[s’] arguments only focus on the disclosure of Armstrong, but makes no direct reference to any supporting rationale in the rejection, the response to arguments provided in the Final Office Action, or even to the teachings of Bailey (which are referred to in the majority of the rationale provided for the rejection), meaning that Appellant[s’] arguments are not directly relevant to the actual rejection. Id. at 8–9; see also id. at 7 (“one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.”) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Third, the disputed limitation: Appeal 2013-006654 Application 12/849,655 6 is a direct modification of the method of Bailey to support the migration of an LPAR from a source network to a destination network, where Armstrong was only provided to show that the copying of an LPAR from a source network to a destination network was known, where by performing the exact process of Bailey in such a way to transfer the supporting resources and the LPAR to the destination network, the method of the third portion of the instant claim is arrived at. Ans. 9. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and independent claims 8 and 15, which recite similar limitations and are argued together with claim 1 (see App. Br. 11). Claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 depend from previously considered independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and are not separately argued over the cited references. App. Br. 15. We therefore sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reasons. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (arguments Appellants did not make are deemed to be waived). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ACP Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation