Ex Parte StrobergerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 23, 201612810180 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/810,180 06/23/2010 Christopher Stroberger 56436 7590 06/27/2016 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. 82236746 3766 EXAMINER OTTO, ALAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2132 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): 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 CHRISTOPHER STROBERGER1 Appeal2015-000103 Application 12/810, 180 Technology Center 2100 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JON M. JURGOV AN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--12, and 15-26, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction over these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal2015-000103 Application 12/810, 180 Introduction According to Appellant, the claims are directed, "[i]n accordance with some embodiments," to "a technique or mechanism ... to allow a logical storage unit to be transferred between different storage controllers of a cluster without disrupting a mirror maintained at a remote mirror system." (Spec. ii 6.) Exemplary Claim Claims 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation italicized, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: performing mirroring of a logical storage unit initially associated with a first controller, wherein a first log segment associated with the first controller is maintained of writes by the first controller to the logical storage unit, the first log segment for use in mirroring the writes to a mirror system; transferring control of the logical storage unit from the first controller to at least a second controller; after the transfer, providing a second log segment associated with at least the second controller of writes by at least the second controller to the logical storage unit; in response to the transfer, adding a first marker in the first log segment and a second marker in the second log segment, the first and second markers to cause the mirror system to synchronize mirrored writes corresponding to writes to the logical storage unit by the first controller and at least the second controller. 2 Appeal2015-000103 Application 12/810, 180 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Sicola Griv US 6,658,540 Bl US 2006/0136685 Al REJECTION Dec. 2, 2003 June 22, 2006 Claims 1, 2, 4--12, and 15-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sicola and Griv. (Final Act. 3-19.) ISSUE Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Sicola and Griv teaches or suggests in response to the transfer, adding a first marker in the first log segment and a second marker in the second log segment, the first and second markers to cause the mirror system to synchronize mirrored \'l1rites corresponding to \'l1rites to the logical storage unit by the first controller and at least the second controller as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claims 15 and 18. ANALYSIS The Examiner cites Sicola as teaching the limitations of claim 1, except for the disputed limitation identified above, for which the Examiner relies on Griv. (Final Act. 3--4.) In particular, the Examiner finds Griv discloses adding "both a first marker in the first log segment and a second marker in the second log segment," because: 3 Appeal2015-000103 Application 12/810, 180 Griv discloses in para. 34 that the boundaries of a PiT[2] frame are determined by PiT markers. Para. 49 further clarifies that a PiT marker is inserted into the beginning of a PiT frame before it is transmitted, then the PiT frame is filled with data by logging data writes, and then inserting another PiT marker to show the end of the PiT frame and finally sending that PiT frame. So a PiT frame contains two separate PiT markers: one marker to mark the beginning of the frame and another marker to mark the end of the frame. Therefore, when a PiT frame is transmitted, the PiT markers that mark the frame boundaries are also transmitted. (Ans. 19, emphasis added).) In other words, the Examiner finds the first log segment and the second log segment would each have a "first marker" and a "second marker" because they would each have the same PiT frame, whose boundaries the Examiner finds are "markers." Appellant argues the Examiner's findings are in error for the following reason: [I]n Griv, the multiple PiT markers that are present in a journal volume are clearly not added in response to the transfer of control of the logical storage unit from the first controller to at least the second controller. Paragraph [0049] of Griv states that a computer program code of Griv inserts a PiT marker beginning a PiT frame to be transferred, and inserts a PiT marker indicating end of the PiT frame to be transferred. Griv, i-f [0049]. What this describes is the insertion of PiT markers at the beginning and end of a PiT frame. This is quite different from what occurs in claim 1, where a first marker is added in the first log segment (associated with the first controller) and the second marker is added in the second log segment (associated with at least the second controller), with both adding being in response to the same transfer of control of the logical storage unit from the first controller to at least the second controller. (Reply Br. 3--4 (italicized emphasis added).) 2 Point in Time. (Griv Abstract.) 4 Appeal2015-000103 Application 12/810, 180 The Examiner acknowledges Griv does not teach the PiT frames are created or transmitted as part of a transfer of control, but asserts "Griv was never cited for this portion of the claim. Sicola was cited." (Ans. 20.) The Examiner further asserts "Sicola clearly states ... that a controller Al transfers control to controller A2 during a failover procedure. Griv is being combined with Sicola." (Id.) We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments that a prima facie case of unpatentability of claim 1 over Sicola and Griv has not been established by the Examiner. Even if the PiT frame boundaries taught by Griv could be mapped to the "first marker" and the "second marker" as recited in claim 1, the Examiner has not made findings supporting a teaching or suggestion in the references that these markers would be added to the "first log segment" and "second log segment," respectively, "in response to the transfer" of control, as recited in claim 1. As noted, the Examiner disclaims reliance on Griv for that teaching, and asserts that Sicola teaches transfer of control from one controller to another. (Ans. 20.) But the Examiner's findings amount to finding only that Griv teaches markers and Sicola teaches transfer of control, which leaves a gap as to whether the markers are added "in response to the transfer," as recited in claim 1. Moreover, as Appellant notes, and we agree, Sicola teaches "mirroring a write-back cache," wherein "an identical copy of the write-back cache is transferred from the first controller to the remote controller." (Reply Br. 8.) Sicola does not, however, teach this "mirroring a write-back cache" is created "in response to the transfer," but rather discloses that it is continually created as part of an ongoing fail-safe process "so that the cache data is available to controller A2 if controller Al fails." (Sicola 13:35-37.) 5 Appeal2015-000103 Application 12/810, 180 In short, we are persuaded by Appellant that the Examiner did not present a prima facie case of unpatentability in the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sicola and Griv. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as independent claims 15 and 18, which recite limitations commensurate with the above- referenced limitation of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 4--12, 16, 17, and 19-26, which stand with their respective independent claims. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--12, and 15-26 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation