Ex Parte Wayda et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201411561680 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JAMES GEORGE WAYDA, KENT LEE, and ELIZABETH G. RODRIGUEZ Appeal 2012-0042481 Application 11/561,680 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEAN R. HOMERE, and ELENI MANTIS-MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Dot Hill Systems Corp. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2012-004248 Application 11/561,680 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–20. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a method and system for allowing an initiator storage system (ISS) to reproduce data at a target storage system (TSS). In particular, upon receiving from the ISS a first command to take a snapshot of data stored on the TSS, and a second command to make the snapshot viewable to the ISS, the TSS generates the viewable snapshot, which the ISS copies subsequently. Fig. 1, Spec. 3, ll. 6–14. Representative Claim Representative independent claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A method of reproducing data, comprising: sending a first command from an initiator storage system to a target storage system requesting the target storage system to take a first snapshot of data stored on the target storage system; sending a second command from the initiator storage system to the target storage system requesting the target storage system to make the first snapshot viewable to the initiator storage system; and copying at least a portion of data from the first viewable snapshot. Prior Art Relied Upon Paxton US 2004/0034647 A1 Feb. 19, 2004 Ohno US 2005/0071393 A1 Mar. 31, 2005 Urmston US 2006/0020762 A1 Jan. 26, 2006 Appeal 2012-004248 Application 11/561,680 3 Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows: Claims 1–6, 8–12, and 14–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Urmston and Paxton. Claims 7 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Urmston, Paxton, and Ohno. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 10–16, and the Reply Brief, pages 3–9.2 Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Urmston and Paxton teaches or suggests an ISS sending a first command to a TSS requesting that the TSS make a snapshot of data stored on the TSS, as recited in claim 1? Appellants argue the proffered combination of references does not render claim 1 unpatentable. App. Br. 11–13, Reply Br. 3–6. In particular, Appellants argue although Urmston discloses a source storage system taking a snapshot of its own data, which is stored subsequently in a target storage system, Urmston does not teach who issued the command requesting the source storage system to create the snapshot. App. Br. 11, Reply Br. 3–4. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 20, 2011), the Reply Brief (filed December 26, 2011) and the Answer (mailed October 31, 2011) for the respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2012-004248 Application 11/561,680 4 We agree with Appellants. While the Examiner has correctly found that Urmston teaches the source storage system creating a snapshot, and storing the snapshot in a remote storage, the Examiner has not provided any evidence that the portions of Urmston teach whether a request was made to the source to create the snapshot, let alone identifying the origin of such a request. As persuasively argued by Appellants, paragraphs [18]–[21] upon which the Examiner relies for the disputed teachings disclose no more than the findings set forth above. Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ additional arguments. Claims 2–20 recite at least the disputed limitations of claim 1 discussed above, thus the Examiner has also erred in rejecting those claims for the foregoing reasons set forth. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 as set forth above. REVERSED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation