Ex Parte Srinivasan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 19, 201612910535 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/910,535 10/22/2010 131931 7590 08/23/2016 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/NetApp 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4528 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kiran Srinivasan 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. 0945787-006739.01.US.PRI 8356 EXAMINER MURRAY, DANIEL C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2443 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2016 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com j ihice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KIRAN SRINIVASAN and TIMOTHY C. BISSON Appeal2015-002881 1 Application 12/910,535 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--15, 17-23, and 25-28, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. App. Br. 5. Claims 3, 16, and 24 have been canceled. Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as NetApp, Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal2015-002881 Application 12/910,535 Appellants' Invention Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for operating a first virtual server to serve a client. In particular, the first virtual server associates with a second, substantially identical virtual server, which takes over for the first virtual server in response to a predetermined event while preserving state for a pending client request sent to the first virtual server in a stateful protocol. Abstract, Fig. 2A. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: operating a first virtual server in an active role in a host processing system to serve a client, by using a stateful protocol between the first virtual server and the client; associating a second virtual server in a passive role with the first virtual server; in response to a predetermined event, causing the second virtual server to take over the active role from the first virtual server, while preserving state for a pending client request sent to the first virtual server in the stateful protocol; and sharing state between the first and second virtual servers prior to the predetermined event, by sharing a designated region of memory between the first and second virtual servers, wherein prior to the predetermined event, the first virtual server has read-write permission to access the region of memory and the second virtual server has read-only permission to access the region of memory. Prior Art Relied Upon Gadir et al. US 2003/0018927 Al Jan.23,2003 2 Appeal2015-002881 Application 12/910,535 ("Gadir") Hebert US 6,718,383 Bl Apr. 6, 2004 Rostowfske et al. US 6,735,717 Bl May 11, 2004 ("Rostowfske") Gupta US 2005/0071389 Al Mar. 31, 2005 Allen et al. US 2007/0180302 Al Aug. 2, 2007 ("Allen") Ponnappan et al. US 2008/0104216 Al May 1, 2008 ("P onnappan") Karnath et al. US 2010/0325485 Al Dec. 23, 2010 ("Karnath") Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 22, 23, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen, Gadir, Rostowfske, and Gupta. Ans. 3-24. Claims 7, 11, 12, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen, Gadir, Rostowfske, Gupta, and Hebert. Ans. 24-29. Claims 8 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen, Gadir, Rostowfske, Gupta, and Ponnappan. Ans. 30-32. Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen, Gadir, Rostowfske, Gupta, and Karnath. Ans. 32- 34. 3 Appeal2015-002881 Application 12/910,535 Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen, Gadir, Rostowfske, Gupta, Karnath, and Hebert. Ans. 34--36. ANALYSIS Appellants argue Rostowfske does not teach sharing a designated region of memory between the first and second virtual servers as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-7. In particular, Appellants contend Rostowfske teaches a primary server 22 with virtual shared memory 24 and back-up server 32 including a back-up virtual shared memory 34, a separate memory from primary server virtual shared memory 24. App. Br. 6 (citing Rostowfske col. 4, 11. 22-33, Fig. 1); Reply Br. 2-3 (citing Rostowfske col. 4, 11. 22-33, Fig. 1 ). Rather than sharing a region of memory, Appellants assert Rostowfske teaches the primary server periodically provides the state table from the primary server virtual shared memory 24 to the back-up virtual shared memory 34. App. Br. 7 (citing Rostowfske Abstract). In response, the Examiner finds Rostowfske teaches sharing the tuple space as a designated region of memory. Ans. 36 (citing Rostowfske col. 4, 11. 22-53). The Examiner finds the tuple space of the back-up server 32 is updated when there is an alteration in the tuple space of the primary server 22. Ans. 37 (citing Rostowfske col. 4, 11. 22-53). The Examiner explains the claims cover sharing by copying or sharing by being the same memory. Ans. 37. We do not agree with the Examiner. At the outset, we note Appellants distinguish sharing a designated region of memory as claimed from transferring state information from one 4 Appeal2015-002881 Application 12/910,535 memory to another memory. App. Br. 6 (citing Spec. if 40). We further note Appellants' Specification describes memory sharing in context with respect to copying data from one memory to another memory. Spec. if 11. In particular, Appellants' Specification states in relevant part: [T]he backup VM is pre-initialized (i.e., initialized before being needed) and maintained in the same state as the active VM before there is any need for a takeover by the backup VM . . . by use of memory sharing between the active [VM] and the [backup] VM, thus avoiding any need to copy data between them. Spec. if 11 (emphasis removed). Based on this distinction in Appellants' Specification between sharing memory and copying data, we agree with Appellants that copying state information between a memory in the primary server and a memory in the back-up server as taught in Rostowfske is not encompassed within the scope of the claimed sharing a designated region of memory between the servers. App. Br. 7. Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner's rejection, we need not reach Appellants' remaining arguments. It follows Appellants have shown error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as in the rejections of claims 2, 4--15, 17-23, and 25-28 which recite commensurate limitations. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--15, 17-23, and 25-28 as set forth above. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation