Ex Parte Samanta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

13715107 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
13/715,107 12/14/2012 Sumanesh Samanta L12-2488US1 2043
57299 7590
Kathy Manke
Avago Technologies Limited
4380 Ziegler Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
12/30/2016 EXAMINER
MCCARTHY, CHRISTOPHER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2113
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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):
kathy .manke @ broadcom. com
patent.info@broadcom.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUMANESH SAMANTA, LUCA BERT, and SUJAN BISWAS
Appeal 2016-004787
Application n/715,1071
Technology Center 2100
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore)
PTE, Ltd. as the real party in interest by virtue of an assignment from LSI
Corp. Br. 4.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, filed September 18, 2015
(“Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed January 25, 2016 (“Ans.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed March 13, 2015 (“Final Act.”); and Appellants’
Specification, filed December 14, 2012 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2016-004787
Application 13/715,107
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 14, 18, and 20 are independent claims. Claim 14 is
illustrative and is reproduced below:
14. A split brain detection and recovery system in or for a
directly attached storage (DAS) computer data storage system
including first and second servers interconnected by a primary
network connection, comprising:
the first server;
the second server interconnected with the first server by
the primary network connection;
a first DAS controller coupled to the first server, the first
DAS controller including a first local cache memory;
a second DAS controller coupled to the second server, the
second DAS controller including a second local cache memory;
and
a secondary network connection directly between the first
and second DAS controllers and used by the first and second
DAS controllers to mirror data stored in the first and second local
cache memories and exchange connectivity information; and
wherein the first and second DAS controllers are
configured to detect a split brain situation comprising a loss of
connectivity between the first and second DAS controllers over
the secondary network connection and to implement corrective
actions in response to the split brain situation to maintain access
to and integrity of data stored in the first and second local cache
memories.
References
Qi et al.
Razdan et al.
US 2012/0192006 Al
US 2013/0198739 Al
US 8,676,753 B2
July 26, 2012
Aug. 1,2013
Mar. 18,2014Sivasubramanian et al.
2
Appeal 2016-004787
Application 13/715,107
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 14—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Qi.3 Final Act. 2—3.
Claims 1—11 and 17—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Qi and Razdan. Final Act. 4—10.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Qi, Razdan, and Sivasubramanian. Final Act. 10-11.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 14—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding “primary storage
system 102” and “secondary storage system 112” of Qi correspond to,
respectively, the claimed “first server” and “second server.” Br. 29-30, 36.
In particular, Appellants argue that Qi describes the hosts to which the
storage systems are connected as servers, and, therefore, Qi discloses servers
that are distinct from storage systems. Br. 29—30.
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner that the storage
systems of Qi “act as data servers to the connected hosts that are sending I/O
requests.” Ans. 16. Appellants have not directed us to, and we have not
found, a definition of “server” in Appellants’ Specification that precludes
Qi’s storage systems from being reasonably interpreted as corresponding to
“servers,” as claimed.
Appellants also contend that the connection through storage
management system 202 in Figure 2 is an “indirect connection” between the
3 Although the Examiner rejected claims 14—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e),
we note that Qi qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as well.
3
Appeal 2016-004787
Application 13/715,107
primary and secondary storage systems, and, therefore, Qi does not disclose
“the second server interconnected with the first server by the primary
network connection,” as recited in claim 14. Br. 28, 31.
We are not persuaded because, as the Examiner correctly determines,
the depicted connection between the systems “can reasonably be interpreted
as an interconnection.” Ans. 16. Qi discloses that “[communication paths
250 and 252 may utilize any of several well-known communication media
and protocols including, for example, Ethernet.” Qi 129. This is consistent
with Appellants’ Specification’s description of the primary network
connection, which states that “[t]he servers are connected to each other
through a primary network, such as an Ethernet.” Spec. 1 5.
Appellants further contend that Qi does not disclose that the primary
and secondary storage systems are “directly attached storage (DAS)”
systems or that the primary and secondary storage controllers are DAS
controllers. Br. 32—34.
We are not persuaded because, as the Examiner correctly finds,
Figure 1 of Qi shows that “the storage system controller is directly attached
to the storage volume.” Ans. 17. Furthermore, Qi describes that the storage
systems are coupled to the hosts via “any suitable communication medium
and protocol including, for example, Ethernet, Fibre Channel, parallel or
serial attached SCSI, etc.” Qi 123 (emphasis added); see Ans. 17.
Appellants’ arguments fail to persuade us that a coupling using a parallel or
serial attached SCSI (small computer system interface) could not be
reasonably interpreted as constituting a direct attachment.
Appellants still further contend Qi does not disclose “a secondary
network connection directly between the first and second DAS controllers,”
4
Appeal 2016-004787
Application 13/715,107
as recited in claim 14, because “primary storage controller 104” and
“secondary storage controller 114” reside at different sites. Br. 34.
We are not persuaded. Qi discloses that “[pjrimary storage system
102 and secondary storage system 112 are communicatively coupled through
replication link 150 (i.e., via their respective controllers 104 and 114),” and
Figures 1 and 2 depict this link using a single bidirectional arrow. Qi 123,
Figs. 1,2. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Qi discloses “a
secondary network connection directly between the first and second DAS
controllers.” Ans. 5, 17.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in determining Qi
anticipated claim 14. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 14, as
well as the rejection of dependent claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102,
for which Appellants offer no additional arguments. See Br. 39.
Rejections of Claims 1—13 and 17—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
With respect to independent claims 1,18, and 20, Appellants’
arguments are, for the most part, substantially similar to arguments advanced
with respect to independent claim 14. We, therefore, find those arguments
unpersuasive for the same reasons. See Br. 39-95. We discuss herein
additional arguments advanced by Appellants in relation to these claims.
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants additionally contend
that the connection through storage management system 202 in Figure 2 is
an “indirect connection” between the primary and secondary storage
systems, and, therefore, Qi does not disclose “a primary network connection
directly between the first and second servers,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 49,
52—53. In response, the Examiner explains that “Qi further teaches that the
5
Appeal 2016-004787
Application 13/715,107
management system can merely be a user interface to communicate with the
storage systems, and the paths can be a ‘serial SCSI.’” Ans. 18 (citing Qi
129). The Examiner also finds that the connection through storage
management system 202 is a “direct connection” in that “the connection is
dedicated to the respective storage systems.” Id. The Examiner further
explains that “[t]he link is not received by the management system and then
branched off in various connections and then merged back into the other
storage system.” Ans. 18. Thus, according to the Examiner’s reasoning,
two devices can be “directly” connected over a “network connection” even if
an intermediary device, such as storage management system 202, is in the
communication path. Appellants do not respond to these findings or the
Examiner’s reasoning.
We are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1. The inquiry
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is whether “the subject matter as a whole would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103). Here, the
Examiner has provided articulated reasoning explaining the findings
underlying the conclusion of obviousness. Based on the record before us,
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us the Examiner erred in concluding
the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious.
With respect to independent claim 20, Appellants additionally contend
Qi does not teach “exchanging connectivity information between the first
and second DAS controllers over the second network connection,” as recited
in claim 20. Br. 90, 93—94. As explained above with respect to independent
claim 14, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that link 150 of Qi describes
6
Appeal 2016-004787
Application 13/715,107
a secondary network connection between the DAS controllers. Qi discloses
that “primary storage system 102 and secondary storage system 112
exchange information over replication link 150 to implement data replication
between two storage systems and to coordinate failover processing in the
event of a failure of one of the storage systems or failure of the replication
link 150.” Qi 126. Thus, Qi teaches “exchanging connectivity information”
over link 150.
We find the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the
subject matter of claims 1—13 and 17—20 would have been obvious over the
references cited, and, therefore, we sustain the rejections of these
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20.
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
7