Ex Parte Zadigian et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2013

11469250 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TIMOTHY M. ZADIGIAN and
A. JAIME MARTINEZ
____________________

Appeal 2011-003036
Application 11/469,250
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003036
Application 11/469,250

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-7 and 13-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims
8-12 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to an information
handling system having a redundant storage enclosure processor (SEP)
implementation for use in a serial attached SCSI (SAS) environment
(Abstract; Title).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An information handling system, comprising:

a single storage initiator configured to initiate storage
requests directed to a plurality of storage targets;

a storage enclosure, comprising:

a first storage controller for enabling a storage
initiator to access the plurality of storage targets
and having an enclosure management subsystem
including a first storage enclosure processor (SEP);

a second storage controller for enabling the storage
initiator to access the plurality of storage targets
Appeal 2011-003036
Application 11/469,250

3
and having an enclosure management subsystem
including a second SEP; and

switching circuitry operable to connect the first
storage controller to either the first SEP or the
second SEP via a non storage interconnection;

wherein the second SEP is operable to detect a
failure of the first SEP and, in response thereto, to
control the switching circuitry to connect the
second SEP to the first storage controller and
disconnect the first SEP from the first storage
controller; and

a single storage interconnection between the storage
initiator and the storage enclosure, the switching circuitry
configured to allow communications between the storage
initiator and either of the first and second storage
controller via the single storage interconnection between
the storage initiator and the storage enclosure.

REFERENCES
Dalton US 7,418,525 B2 Aug. 26, 2008
Pang
Lucas
US 2006/0136688 A1
US 2007/0088978 A1
Jun. 22, 2006
Apr. 19, 2007

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
(1) Claims 1-3, 5, 13-15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Lucas and Pang (Ans. 3-7).
(2) Claims 4, 6, 7, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Lucas, Pang, and
Dalton (Ans. 7-9).
Appeal 2011-003036
Application 11/469,250

4

We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).

35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1-3, 5, 13-15, and 18
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Lucas and Pang
because Lucas and Pang fail to disclose the recited “single storage
interconnection” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 7).
Thus, the issue presented by Appellants’ arguments is:
Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Lucas
and Pang teaches or suggests
(i) “a single storage interconnection between the storage initiator
and the storage enclosure, the switching circuitry configured to
allow communications between the storage initiator and either
of the first and second storage controller via the single storage
interconnection between the storage initiator and the storage
enclosure” as recited in claim 1; and
(ii) “a storage enclosure operable to communicate with the storage
initiator via a single storage interconnection between the
storage initiator and the storage enclosure” and “the single
storage interconnection between the storage initiator and the
storage enclosure allows communications between the storage
initiator and either of the first and second controller via the
single storage interconnection” as recited in claim 13?
Appeal 2011-003036
Application 11/469,250

5
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Pang, upon which the Examiner relies, fails to teach
or suggest a single storage interconnection between the host and the SVCs
(Storage Virtualization Controllers) (App. Br. 8). According to Appellants,
although Pang discloses an intercontroller channel (ICC) between SVC1 and
SVC2, Pang does not teach an interconnection between the host entity and
either one of SVC1 and SVC2 (id.).
We are not persuaded. Initially, in rejecting claim 1, the Examiner
finds Lucas teaches the “switching circuitry” (Ans. 4 citing Lucas ¶ 0015
describing crossover port 230). The Examiner finds that Lucas fails to
disclose “a single storage interconnection between the storage initiator and
the storage enclosure, the switching circuitry configured to allow
communications between the storage initiator and either of the first and
second storage controller via the single storage interconnection between the
storage initiator and the storage enclosure” which the Examiner finds Pang
teaches (id.) (emphasis added).
Specifically, the Examiner relies on the switches 342 (see Figure 12)
as teaching “the switching circuitry configured to allow communications
. . .” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 4). We find Pang’s switches are configured
to allow the host (initiator) to communicate with either SVC1 or SVC2.
Indeed, Pang teaches a “redundant external SAS storage virtualization
subsystem 20 . . . configured into a redundant SVC pair such that when one
of the SVCs is in trouble, . . . the other SVC will automatically take over the
functionality of troubled SVC” (pg. 11, [0142]; see also Ans. 10 and 11).
The access control switch 342, which may be a port selector, is configured to
Appeal 2011-003036
Application 11/469,250

6
selectively switch an interconnection between one of the SVCs and the
storage (pg. 11, [0145]-[0147]; Ans. 11). Thus, we find Pang teaches the
switching circuitry is configured to allow communications between the host
(storage initiator) and either of the first and second SVCs (first and second
storage controller). As a result, we agree with the Examiner that Pang
teaches, “a single storage interconnection between the storage initiator and
the storage enclosure” as recited in claim 1 (see Ans. 9-11).
Further, as a result of a first SVC malfunctioning, a second SVC
asserts the malfunctioning SVCs reset signal to completely incapacitate the
first SVC (pg. 11, [0146]; Ans. 10). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner
that a switchover process occurs in which either of the first and second
storage controller enables communication between the host (storage
initiator) (Ans. 10-11). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 9-11)
that Pang teaches “switching circuitry configured to allow communications
between the storage initiator and either of the first and second storage
controller via the single storage interconnection between the storage initiator
and the storage enclosure” (claim 1) (emphasis added).
Similarly, with respect to claim 13, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument that Pang does not facilitate any communication
between the host entity and SVC1 and/or SVC2 (App. Br. 8). Instead, we
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Lucas and Pang teaches “a
storage enclosure operable to communicate with the storage initiator via a
single storage interconnection between the storage initiator and the storage
enclosure” and “the single storage interconnection between the storage
initiator and the storage enclosure allows communications between the
Appeal 2011-003036
Application 11/469,250

7
storage initiator and either of the first and second controller via the single
storage interconnection” (see Ans. 11-12).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Lucas and Pang teaches or suggests the limitations as recited
in independent claims 1and 13 and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 14, 15, and 18,
not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claims 1-3, 5, 13-15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Lucas and Pang.
Claims 4, 6, 7, 16, 17, 19, and 20 were not separately argued and thus,
fall with their respective independent claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 13-15, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lucas and Pang is affirmed.1
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 6, 7, 16, 17, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lucas, Pang, and Dalton 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

1 In the event of further prosecution, we note the logical inconsistency of
claim 1 which recites the first controller includes a first SEP and then recites
“switching circuitry operable to connect the first storage controller [that
includes the first SEP] to . . . the first SEP” and switching circuitry to
“disconnect the first SEP from the first storage controller.”
Appeal 2011-003036
Application 11/469,250

8

tj