Ex Parte Vaghani et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 6, 201613074916 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2016) 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. 13/074,916 03/29/2011 Satyam B. VAGHANI A516.CIP 1683 36378 7590 VMWARE, INC. DARRYL SMITH 3401 Hillview Ave. PALO ALTO, CA 94304 12/08/2016 EXAMINER CHOI, YUK TING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2153 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/08/2016 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): ipteam @ vmware. com ipadmin@vmware.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SATYAM B. VAGHANI and MANJUNATH RAJASHEKHAR Appeal 2016-001613 Application 13/074,9161 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1—13 and 21—26. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is VMware, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2016-001613 Application 13/074,916 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1—13, 22, 23, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Adam et al. (US 2008/0184249 Al, published July 31, 2008) and Chan (US 6,920,454 Bl, issued July 19, 2005). Final Act. 4—9. Claims 21 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Adam, Chan, and Govindaraju et al. (US 6,105,050, issued Aug. 15, 2000). Final Act. 9. THE CLAIMED INVENTION The present invention generally relates to lock operations to gain access to system resources, and more particularly to atomic test and set operations used in performing lock operations that allow a node to acquire or release a lock to a resource of a shared file system that is stored in a data storage unit without preventing other nodes from performing input/output with the data storage unit. See Spec. ]Hf 5—6, 8. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method; and independent claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. App. Br. 13—14. Claim 1 recites 1. A method of managing accesses to resources of a shared file system that are stored in a data storage unit (DSU) using locks for the resources, wherein contents of the locks are also stored in the DSU, comprising the steps of: reading contents of a lock associated with a resource of the shared file system to obtain a current state of the lock, wherein the contents of the lock and the resource of shared file system are stored in the DSU and the contents of the lock are read from a storage location for the lock in the DSU, and wherein the shared file system is a file system that is shared among a plurality of host computers including a first host computer and a second host computer and the storage location 2 Appeal 2016-001613 Application 13/074,916 of the lock in the DSU is accessed by the first host computer when the first host computer is examining the current state of the lock and by the second host computer when the second host computer is examining the current state of the lock; determining that the lock is available based on the current state; transmitting a command to the DSU, the command including an old image of the contents, a new image of the contents, and a request to perform an atomic update to the contents of the lock comprising a first operation to confirm that the current state of the lock represented by the old image of the contents has not changed since the reading and a second operation to acquire the lock by writing the new image of the contents into the storage location for the lock in the DSU, wherein no other operation can be performed on the lock between the first operation and the second operation; and acquiring access to the resource upon receiving confirmation of successful completion of the atomic update, wherein no exclusive reservation of the DSU is requested to update the contents of the lock and acquire access to the resource. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims are unpatentable over the cited combination of references. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. We provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. 3 Appeal 2016-001613 Application 13/074,916 Claims 1—13, 22, 23, 25, and 26 Appellants contend Chan does not teach or suggest “contents of a lock associated with a resource of the shared file system to obtain a current state of the lock, wherein the contents of the lock and the resource of shared file system are stored in the DSU and the contents of the lock are read from a storage location for the lock in the DSU,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7; Rep. Br. 2—3 (emphasis added). Appellants’ argument against Chan separately from Adams does not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Specifically, the Examiner finds Adams teaches reading contents of a lock associated with a resource, and resources of a shared file system that are stored in a data storage unit using locks for the resources. Final Act. 4. We agree with the Examiner. As cited by the Examiner, Adams discloses: FIG. 1 illustrates a computer system 10 including multiple processors (or CPUs) 12a, b, c, each executing one or more programs... a single operating system 13 and multiple applications 20, 21, and 22, all executed by processors 12a, b, c... System 10 also includes a known type of resource 14, such as a data structure, a work queue, a device, an adapter, a file, a database, or a directory, accessible in either an exclusive manner or shared manner with corresponding type of hold of the associated lock... Adams 121 (emphasis added). 4 Appeal 2016-001613 Application 13/074,916 System 10 also includes a lock manager program 15, lock acquisition program macro 35 and lock release program macro 45 ... . The lock manager 15 can support one of more locks 29 for resources 14 by allowing either an exclusive hold of a lock 29 or more concurrent, shared holds of that same lock... Adams 122 (emphasis added). A program or program function {such as application 20, 21, or 22, scheduler 23 or dispatcher 24 of operating system 13 executing on one of the processors 12a, b or c) invokes the processing of FIG. 2 when the program or program function needs an exclusive hold on a resource and calls the lock acquisition macro 35 beginning at step 200. In response, the lock acquisition macro 35 assumes that the lock is available in state Av or AvX and atomically attempts to change a lock state of Av or AvX to X (step 200). Adams 133 (emphasis added). In other words, Adams describes a system including lock contents that are managed, as well as the resources for which the lock manages access, and multiple processors; and Adams describes the processors running programs requiring resource access and reading the lock contents. As such, Adams teaches or suggests lock contents and the associated resources being stored on a system or unit, and reading the lock contents from their storage location for the purposes of accessing the associated resources. Appellants further contend Chan does not teach or suggest “the shared file system is a file system that is shared among a plurality of host computers including a first host computer and a second host computer and the storage location of the lock in the DSU is accessed by the first host computer when the first host computer is examining the current state of the lock and by the second host computer when the second host computer is examining the current state of the lock,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8—9 5 Appeal 2016-001613 Application 13/074,916 (emphasis added). Specifically, Appellants argue that in Chan, no two nodes ever access the same lock object and neither the master RLO nor the shadow RLO of Chan describe the claimed lock. Rep. Br. 2—A. In response, the Examiner finds Chan teaches shadow RLOs for a resource are spread over multiple nodes and servers, and each shadow RLO may be used to perform the lock operation at that node related to the resource associated with the shadow RLO, and thereby that a lock contents can be read by different nodes from the lock’s shadow RLOs. Ans. 5—6. We agree with the Examiner. As cited by the Examiner, Chan discloses: One or more shadow RLOs for any given resource may be spread over one or more nodes, effectively turning the master resource locking object (MRLO) into a distributed locking object. Lor example, resource 261, which has a master RLO 236 on node 232, has shadow SLOs 209, 219, and 229 on nodes 202, 212, and 222, respectively to handle lock requests for resource 261 by the corresponding data base servers on those same nodes. Each of the nodes that has a shadow RLO may be used to perform lock operations at that node related to the resource associated with the shadow RLO. Lor example, node 202 can be used to perform lock operations on node 202 related to resource 261 using shadow RLO 209, even though the master RLO for resource 261 is master RLO 238 on node 232. Chan col. 3,1. 61—col. 4,1. 8 (emphasis added). In other words, Chan describes multiple nodes reading contents of a lock from the storage location for the contents of the lock, furthermore, Adams teaches or suggests lock contents and the associated resources being stored on a system or unit, and reading the lock contents from the lock contents storage location for the purposes of accessing the associated resources. See final Act. 4, citing Adams Tflf 21, 22, and 33. 6 Appeal 2016-001613 Application 13/074,916 Again, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck at 1097; In re Keller at 425. The combination of Chan and Adams teaches or suggests lock contents and the associated resources being stored on a system or unit, and reading the lock contents from their storage locations, as described in Adams; as well as reading contents using a first host computer and a second host computer in a shared file system as described in Chan. Appellants further contend the combination of Adams and Chan does not teach or suggest “a request to perform an atomic update to the contents of the lock comprising a first operation to confirm that the current state of the lock represented by the old image of the contents has not changed since the reading and a second operation to acquire the lock by writing the new image of the contents into the storage location for the lock in the DSU,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9-10; Rep. Br. 5 (emphasis added). In response, the Examiner finds Adams teaches changing or updating a previous lock state Av or Avx to a new lock state X, and thereby teaches an atomic update to the contents of the lock and writing the new image. Ans. 7—8. We agree with the Examiner. As cited by the Examiner, Adams discloses: A program or program function {such as application 20, 21, or 22, scheduler 23 or dispatcher 24 of operating system 13 executing on one of the processors 12a, b or c) invokes the processing of FIG. 2 when the program or program function needs an exclusive hold on a resource and calls the lock acquisition macro 35 beginning at step 200. In response, the lock acquisition macro 35 assumes that the lock is available in state Av or AvX and atomically attempts to change a lock state of Av or AvX to X (step 200). 7 Appeal 2016-001613 Application 13/074,916 Adams 133 (emphasis added). In other words, Adams describes analyzing the current state of a lock and atomically changing the lock state. As such, Adams teaches or suggests performing an atomic update and, by writing a new lock state, Adams teaches or suggests writing a new image for the contents of the lock. Appellants have not provided persuasive argument or evidence that: (1) “reading contents of a lock associated with a resource of the shared file system to obtain a current state of the lock, wherein the contents of the lock and the resource of shared file system are stored in the DSU and the contents of the lock are read from a storage location for the lock in the DSU,” as recited in claim 1, is not taught or otherwise suggested by Adams’ lock contents and associated resources being stored on a system or unit, and reading the lock contents from their storage location for the purposes of accessing the associated resources; (2) “the storage location of the lock in the DSU is accessed by the first host computer when the first host computer is examining the current state of the lock and by the second host computer when the second host computer is examining the current state of the lock,” as recited in claim 1, is not taught or otherwise suggested by Adams’ lock contents and the associated resources being stored on a system or unit, and reading the lock contents from their storage locations, as described in Adams, in combination with Chan’s reading contents using a first host computer and a second host computer in a shared file system; and (3) “perform an atomic update to the contents of the lock comprising a first operation to confirm that the current state of the lock represented by the old image of the contents has not changed since the reading and a second operation to acquire the lock by writing the new image of the contents into 8 Appeal 2016-001613 Application 13/074,916 the storage location for the lock in the DSU,” as recited in claim 1, is not taught or otherwise suggested by Adams’ performing an atomic update and writing a new image by atomically writing a new lock state for the contents of the lock. Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the rejection of commensurate independent claim 9 and dependent claims 2—8, 10-13, 22, 23, 25, and 26, not separately argued. See App. Br. 7, 12. Claims 21 and 24 Appellants have provided no separate arguments towards patentability for claims 21 and 24. Therefore, the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 21 and 24 is sustained for similar reasons as noted supra. DECISION The rejection of claims 1—13 and 21—26 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation