Ex Parte Singh et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 23, 201613096404 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/096,404 04/28/2011 57299 7590 06/27/2016 Kathy Manke A vago Technologies Limited 4380 Ziegler Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Rajendra Singh 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. Ll0-0536US1 4459 EXAMINER BERTRAM, RYAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2137 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/27/2016 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) U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAJENDRA SINGH and SOURIN SARKAR Appeal2014-009723 Application 13/096,404 Technology Center 2100 Before THU A. DANG, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is identified as LSI Corporation. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal2014-009723 Application 13/096,404 Claimed Subject Matter The claimed invention generally relates to systems for operating a redundant array of independent disks (RAID). (Spec. i-f 1.) A RAID system may include a topology, e.g. a root host bus adapter (HBA) at the top of a tree of serial attached SCSI2 (SAS) expanders, with storage media connected to some of the expanders. (Spec. i-f 3.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A SAS expander for use in a SAS topology, comprising: a receiving portion configured to receive a remote RAID instruction from a root host bus adapter; and a controller configured to execute said remote RAID instruction to manage a RAID volume in accordance with a RAID management task specified by said remote RAID instruction. Rejections3 Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Oikawa et al. (US 2008/0244098 Al, published Oct. 2, 2008). (Final Act. 6-11.) Claims 2, 7, 9, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Oikawa and Shellhamer (US 2009/0259882 Al, published Oct. 15, 2009). (Final Act. 11-15.) Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Oikawa and Kalwitz (US 2008/0109584 Al, published May 8, 2008). (Final Act. 15-18.) 2 SCSI refers to "Small Computer System Interface." 3 The objections to the Specification (Final Act. 2-5) are not before us on appeal. (See App. Br. 4.) 2 Appeal2014-009723 Application 13/096,404 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 4--11; Reply Br. 2-5). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and set forth in the Answer (see Ans. 3--4). We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellants argue the Examiner considers SAS Expander 13 1 A and RAID control unit 121A shown in Figure 2A of Oikawa to correspond to the SAS expander and controller, respectively, recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 5.) Appellants contend Oikawa does not disclose the claimed "SAS expander ... comprising ... a controller" because Figure 2A of Oikawa shows SAS Expander 13 lA is separate and distinct from RAID control unit 12 lA. (App. Br. 6.) The Examiner clarifies in the Answer that Oikawa's controller device 109A is considered the claimed SAS expander, and that "[t]he Examiner merely referred to figure 2A, # 13 lA in the Office Action to establish the notion that controller device 109 A has the capabilities of [a] SAS expander" (Ans. 4). We agree with the Examiner that Oikawa's controller device 109A can be considered a SAS expander, as recited in the preamble of claim 1, at least because it includes SAS Expander 13 lA. In addition, we agree with the Examiner's findings that paragraphs 72 and 73 of Oikawa disclose "controller device 109 A is a single hardware circuit that acts as [a] SAS expander with RAID control capabilities" (Ans. 4). Accordingly, we are not 3 Appeal2014-009723 Application 13/096,404 persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Oikawa discloses a "SAS expander ... comprising ... a controller," as recited in claim 1. In the Reply Brief, Appellants acknowledge the Examiner considers Oikawa's controller device 109A to be the claimed SAS expander, but argue the "cited portions of Oikawa clearly do NOT teach that controller device 109A is SAS expander 131 since Fig. 2A and paragraph [0072] of Oikawa teach that the controller device 109A includes not only SAS expander 13 lA, but also controller 11 OA" (Reply Br. 4 ). We find Appellants' arguments to be without merit. As discussed above, the Examiner does not find controller device 109 A consists only of SAS expander 131, but rather it is considered the claimed SAS expander at least because it includes SAS expander capabilities, as well as the other structures recited in claim 1. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of any difference relevant to an anticipation analysis between the SAS expander integrated with a controller as claimed and the SAS expander integrated with a controller as disclosed in Oikawa. That the claim labels the resulting apparatus a SAS expander as opposed to a controller device as in Oikawa is not determinative. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Oikawa. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and, for the same reasons, the rejection of claims 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18, which Appellants argue are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1 (App. Br. 7-8). 4 4 Appellants' statements that each of dependent claims 3, 6, 10, 11, 17, and 18 is "novel in its own right by combination of the elements therein with the elements" of the respective independent claims (App. Br. 7-8) are not separate arguments ofpatentability. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 4 Appeal2014-009723 Application 13/096,404 Appellants do not provide additional substantive argument with respect to the obviousness rejections. Thus, for the same reasons as claim 1, we sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of (I) claims 2, 7, 9, 14, and 16 as unpatentable over Oikawa and Shellhamer, and (2) claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Oikawa and Kalwitz. 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 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation