Ex Parte Yamagami

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 1, 2011

11365096 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 1, 2011)

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.
11/365,096 02/28/2006 Kenji Yamagami HTA-5323-02 2218
24956 7590 11/02/2011
MATTINGLY & MALUR, PC
1800 DIAGONAL ROAD
SUITE 370
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
DARNO, PATRICK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KENJI YAMAGAMI
____________

Appeal 2009-010611
Application 11/365,096
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JAY P.
LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 12-31, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2009-010611
Application 11/365,096

2
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to “journaling,” which is a backup and
restore technique commonly used in database systems. An image of the data
to be backed up (a snapshot) is taken. As changes are made to the data, a
journal of the changes is maintained. Recovery of data is accomplished by
applying the journal to an appropriate image to recover data at any point in
time. Spec. ¶ [05]. In Appellant’s system, two journal entry types are
maintained, an AFTER journal entry and a BEFORE journal entry.
Abstract.

Representative Claims
12. A storage system to be coupled to a host computer via a network,
the storage system comprising:

a data volume storing write data from the host computer;

a snapshot storing area for storing a plurality of snapshots including a
first snapshot of at least a portion of the data volume at a first point in time,
and also storing a second snapshot of the portion of the data volume at a
second point in time that is a latest snapshot among the stored snapshots; and

a journal storing area storing an oldest after-journal entry before the
first point in time, an after-journal entry between the first and second point
in time, and another after-journal entry after the second point in time,

wherein the journal storing area has a variable amount of available
space in which new after-journal entries can be written,

wherein if the amount of available space in the journal storing area
falls below a predetermined threshold, then the amount of available space is
increased by sequentially freeing journals beginning with the oldest after-
Appeal 2009-010611
Application 11/365,096

3
journal entry without applying the journals until the amount of available
space is no longer below the predetermined threshold,

wherein if, during the increasing of the amount of available space, it
becomes necessary to free said another after-journal entry after the second
point in time, then said another after-journal entry is applied to the second
snapshot to create a new snapshot before being made free,

wherein when receiving a data recovery request to recover data at a
target point in time between the first point in time and the second point in
time, determining whether recovery is possible, and if recovery is possible,
by using a copy of the first snapshot in a recovery volume and at least a
portion of one after-journal entry to perform recovery at the target point in
time, and

wherein based on a user’s selection, the storage system determines
whether to create a before-journal entry before applying said portion of one
after-journal entry to the copy of the first snapshot, the before-journal entry
being recording data that is stored in a location where the after-journal entry
is applied to enable rollback to a snapshot at any point in time between the
first snapshot and the second snapshot.

29. A storage system to be coupled to a host computer via a network
comprising:

a data volume storing write data from the host computer;

a snapshot storing area for storing a first snapshot of at least a portion
of the data volume at a first point in time; and

a journal storing area storing after-journal entries corresponding to the
write data;

wherein when the storage system creates a second snapshot by
applying at least the portion of after-journal entries to the first snapshot
while creating a before-journal entry for each of the after-journal entries that
is applied if it is in a first mode, the before-journal entry being recording
data that is stored in a location where the after-journal entry is applied to
Appeal 2009-010611
Application 11/365,096

4
enable rollback to a snapshot at any point in time between the first snapshot
and the second snapshot,

wherein when the storage system creates a second snapshot by
applying at least a portion of after-journal entries to the first snapshot
without creating the before-journal entry if it is in a second mode, and

wherein the first and second modes are determined based on a user’s
selection.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 12-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Wu (US 6,981,114 B1).

ANALYSIS
Claims 12-28, 30, and 31
Instant claim 12 recites, inter alia, that if the amount of available
space in the journal storing area falls below a predetermined threshold, then
the amount of available space is increased by sequentially freeing journals
beginning with the oldest after-journal entry without applying the journals
until the amount of available space is no longer below the predetermined
threshold.
The Examiner finds that Wu describes sequentially freeing journals,
as claimed, at column 5, lines 51 through 55 and column 6, lines 24 through
34. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that column 5, lines 51 through 55
discloses that journals (modifications) are applied to a snapshot when the
modification or journal storing area (modification log) reaches a maximum
size (predetermined threshold). Id. The Examiner further finds that column
Appeal 2009-010611
Application 11/365,096

5
6, lines 24 through 34 describes backing up the modifications (journal) to an
offline device, “presumably” to free up storage space in the computer
system. “By moving the modifications (journals) from journal-storing area
(Wu: memory, Fig. 2, 206), to a back-up device (Wu: Fig. 2, 250), the
modifications (journals) are freed from memory without being applied to a
snapshot.” Id. 14.
However, in the indicated section of column 5, Wu discloses that a
new snapshot may be created each time a modification log reaches a
maximum size, not that the modifications are applied to a snapshot. Wu
discloses in the indicated section of column 6 alternatives where all or part
of modification log(s) 260 (Fig. 2) may be stored, as in memory 206, in
primary volumes 220, or on backup storage device 250. Wu says nothing
about moving modifications (or journals) from one alternative storage area
to another such that available space is increased by sequentially freeing
journals beginning with the oldest after-journal entry, as claimed.
We therefore agree with Appellant to the extent that Wu has not been
shown to anticipate the subject matter of claim 12. As independent claims
16 and 25 recite features similar to those that we have considered in claim
12, and in view of the claim dependencies, we cannot sustain the § 102(e)
rejection of claims 12-28, 30, and 31.

Claim 29
In terms of claim 29, the “after-journal entries” correspond to the
write data. The “before-journal entry” is recording data that is stored in a
location where the after-journal entry is applied. According to the
Appeal 2009-010611
Application 11/365,096

6
Specification (¶ [28]), “[a]n AFTER journal entry contains the data that is
contained in the write operation for which a journal entry is made. A
BEFORE journal entry contains the original data of the area in storage that is
the target of a write operating”, thus representing the contents “before the
write operation is performed.”1
Wu describes the relationship between a deleted snapshot 270D (Fig.
6), created at time T3, and an existing snapshot 270E, created at T7. The
deleted snapshot 270D may be reconstructed from the existing snapshot
270E and the modification log. By modifying the existing snapshot 270E to
undo the modifications logged between time T6 and T7, T5 and T6, T4 and
T5, and T3 and T4, the deleted snapshot 270D may be reconstructed. The
snapshot manager may thus move backward through the modification logs
from time T7 to time T3, replacing any modified blocks with their pre-
modification values. Wu col. 9, ll. 3-19; see also col. 7, ll. 26-51; col. 8, ll.
19-31.
We also describes an alternative process (not depicted in Fig. 6) that
does not require temporary reconstruction of intermediate snapshots between
existing snapshot 270E (at T7) and the deleted snapshot 270D (at T3). Id.,
col. 9, ll. 20-26. The snapshot manager may reconstruct snapshots without
applying or undoing modifications in chronological order, such that
intervening snapshots may not be temporarily reconstructed. Instead, the
snapshot manager may compare the modifications in each time period to
determine if some blocks were modified in multiple time periods, applying

1 The claim 29 “first mode” corresponds to the phase II recovery operation
described in the Specification. The “second mode” corresponds to the phase
I recovery operation. See Spec. ¶¶ [94], [97].
Appeal 2009-010611
Application 11/365,096

7
fewer than all the intervening modifications when reconstructing the deleted
snapshot. For example, if the same block was modified between time T5
and T6 and between time T3 and T4, the snapshot manager may only restore
that block to its pre-modification value at time T3 without first restoring the
block to its pre-modification block at time T5. Id., col. 9, ll. 26-44.
The Examiner finds that the option depicted in Figure 6 of Wu
corresponds to the “first mode” of claim 29 and that the alternative process
described by Wu corresponds to the claimed “second mode.” Ans. 15-16.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in the
findings.
In particular, we are not persuaded that Wu’s description of
reconstructing snapshots by use of modification logs (Fig. 6) differs from the
claimed application of after-journal entries while creating a before-journal
entry for each of the after-journal entries. In each step as depicted in Wu’s
Figure 6, from time T7 to time T3 the modified (intermediate) blocks are
replaced with their pre-modification values (i.e., having the original data that
is the target of the write operation associated with the after-journal entry).
Wu col. 9, ll. 16-19. We are further not persuaded that Wu’s description of
the alternative for reconstructing snapshots differs from the claimed
application of after-journal entries to a first snapshot without creating the
before-journal entry. In Wu’s alternative process, a block may be restored to
its pre-modification value without first restoring the block to its pre-
modification block at an intermediate time. Wu col. 9, ll. 39-44. Thus,
Appeal 2009-010611
Application 11/365,096

8
after-journal entries are applied to a first snapshot (at time T6) without
creating the before-journal entry associated with the intermediate snapshot
(at time T5) to create a second snapshot (at time T3).
We disagree with Appellant’s implication (App. Br. 17) that claim 29
requires that “during data recovery, based on a user’s selection, the storage
system determines whether to create a before-journal entry before applying a
portion of one after-journal entry to a copy of a snapshot.” Moreover, with
respect to a “user,” claim 29 merely requires that the first and second modes
(both modes, as opposed to one or the other) “are determined” based on the
user’s selection. While Wu does not describe, under the precepts of
anticipation, a system that has two different modes of operation, with one or
the other being selected by a user, claim 29 is not so limited. The claim
recites two different modes, and Wu describes two different modes. As the
Examiner notes, Appellant submits that a “user” is not limited to a human
being but may be a machine. Spec. ¶ [86]. Claim 29 thus requires no more
than that both modes are determined based on a computer’s or system’s
selection (without human action). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 16) to
the extent that Wu’s computer system is programmed to at least implement
one alternative or the other, which constitutes a determination of the modes
based on the system’s selection, as broadly claimed.
We thus sustain the § 102(e) rejection of claim 29 over Wu.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 12-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Wu is affirmed with respect to claim 29 but reversed with
Appeal 2009-010611
Application 11/365,096

9
respect to claims 12-28, 30, and 31.No time period for taking any subsequent
action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

pgc