Ex Parte Wade et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

13198123 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/198,123 08/04/2011
76444 7590
Setter Roche LLP
14694 Orchard Parkway
Building A, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80023
09/28/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gregory L. Wade
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.
Ql2-857.0014-US1 7149
EXAMINER
DAV ANLOU, SOHEILA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
uspto@setterroche.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY L. WADE and J. MITCHELL HAILE
Appeal2015-002954
Application 13/198,123
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, JEFFREYS. SMITH and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to systems and methods for creating and
maintaining data stored in a plurality of storage volumes. Specification
[0023].
Appeal2015-002954
Application 13/198,123
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon
program instructions for updating a replica of a target storage volume
associated with a plurality of data blocks on an underlying storage volume
that underlies the target storage volume, wherein the program instructions,
when executed by a data control system, direct the data control system to:
responsive to an instruction to update the replica, identifY a first group
of data blocks of the plurality of data blocks on the underlying storage
volume that have changed;
identifY a second group of data blocks of the first group of data blocks
that are live;
identifY changed data items included in the target storage volume that
are associated with the second group of data blocks;
initiate an ancillary process on the changed data items; and
initiate an update of the replica of the target storage volume with the
second group of data blocks.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over De Souter (US Patent Number 8,250,033
Bl; issued August 21, 2012) and Kapoor (US Patent Application Publication
Number 2008/0133518 Al; published June 5, 2008). Final Rejection 4--14.
Claims 4, 11and18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over De Souter, Kapoor and Shimada (US Patent Number
4,878,221; issued October 31, 1989). Final Rejection 14--16.
2
Appeal2015-002954
Application 13/198,123
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 28, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed
January 20, 2015), the Answer (mailed November 19, 2014) and the Final
Rejection (mailed January 2, 2014) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs.
Appellants argue:
De Souter fails to teach or suggest a target storage volume in
accordance with the target storage volume of claim 1, and
thereby also fails to teach a replica of that target storage volume.
De Souter further fails to teach or suggest identifying a first
group of data blocks of the plurality of data blocks on the
underlying storage volume that have changed, identifying a
second group of data blocks of the first group of data blocks that
are live, and identifying changed data items included in the
target storage volume that are associated with the second group
of data blocks, as recited by claim 1.
Appeal Brief 7.
The Examiner finds De Souter discloses the method for updating
synchronization of one storage volume that underlies another storage volume
as disclosed in claim 1 with the exception that De Souter fails to disclose
initiating an ancillary process of the changed data items. Final Rejection
5-7. The Examiner relies upon Kapoor to address De Souter' s noted
exception. Final Rejection 7-8.
Appellants further argues:
De Souter merely discloses, if a data block is being overwritten
during a data write operation after the point in time, creating an
entry in a block map indicating that the data block has been
modified and storing data from the data block prior to the
overwrite operation in a save volume (see col. 2, 11. 42-50).
Alternatively, if a data block is not being overwritten (i.e. was
3
Appeal2015-002954
Application 13/198,123
not previously allocated to the file system), creating an entry in
the map indicating that the data block has been modified (see col.
2, 11. 50----61).
In other words, De Souter merely identifies blocks that are
allocated to the file system, which may equate to the
identification of data blocks that are live, as provided by claim 1.
However, the live blocks of claim 1 are identified from data
blocks that are identified as being changed and De Souter never
identifies changed blocks from which the allocated blocks can be
identified. Rather, as noted above, De Souter is merely concerned
with identifying whether a data block is allocated before the
block is overwritten (i.e. before the blocks are changed) and does
not first identify blocks that have changed from which those
allocated blocks are selected. Accordingly, De Souter fails to
disclose identifying data blocks that are changed and identifYing
blocks that are live from those changed blocks, as does claim 1
when identifying the second group of data blocks.
Appeal Brief 7-8.
The Examiner finds De Souter1 discloses the claimed target
storage volume; however, we find Appellants' argument persuasive.
De Souter merely discloses a general operation wherein a file system
selective writes some of the first data set to a second storage unit. (See
Footnote). It is not evident from the Examiner's finding that
1 The method further comprises an act of determining whether the operation
results in the file system writing at least some of the first set of data to at
least one second unit of storage that did not store data for the file system.
When it is determined that the operation results in the file system writing at
least some of the first set of data to at least one second unit of storage that
did not store data for the file system, the method performs acts of creating an
entry in the at least one map indicating that the at least one unit of storage
was modified subsequent to the point in time, and refraining from copying
any data stored in the at least one unit of storage to the at least one save
volume. De Souter, column 2, lines 50----61.
4
Appeal2015-002954
Application 13/198,123
De Souter discloses the addition target storage volume as claimed in
independent claim 1, as well as, independent claims 8 and 14. Kapoor
fails to address De Souter' s noted deficiency. See Final Rejection 7-8
(citing Kapoor Figure 5, element 450). We reverse the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 8 and 14, as well as,
the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-20 are reversed.
REVERSED
5