Ex Parte Zohar et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 25, 2010

10620080 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 25, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte OFIR ZOHAR, YARON REVAH, HAIM HELMAN, and
DROR COHEN
____________________

Appeal 2009-004591
Application 10/620,0801
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: June 25, 2010
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES D. THOMAS, and JAY P. LUCAS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed July 15, 2003. The real party in interest is XIV, Ltd., an
Israeli corporation.
Appeal 2009-004591
Application 10/620,080

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal from a final rejection of claims 1 to 10 and 23 to 32
under authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). The Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 11 to
22 and 33 to 44 are withdrawn.

We reverse.

Appellants’ invention relates to a method for redundantly storing data
in an efficient manner (Spec. 5, ll. 3-4). In the words of Appellants:
[A] data distribution system comprises a plurality
of data storage devices wherein data blocks may be
stored. The data blocks are stored at logical
addresses that are assigned to the data storage
devices according to a procedure which allocates
the addresses among the devices in a manner that
reduces the overhead incurred when a device is
added to or removed from the system, and so as to
provide a balanced access to the devices. . . . If a
storage device is added to or removed from the
system, the procedure reallocates the logical
addresses between the new numbers of devices so
that the balanced access is maintained. If a device
has been added, the procedure only transfers
addresses to the added storage device. . . . [T]he
only transfers of data that occur are of data blocks
stored at the transferred addresses. The procedure
thus minimizes data transfer and associated
management overhead when the number of storage
devices is changed, or when the device
configuration is changed.
(Spec. 5, ll. 5-27).

2
Appeal 2009-004591
Application 10/620,080

Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A method for data distribution, comprising:

distributing logical addresses among an
initial set of storage devices so as to provide a
balanced access to the devices;

transferring the data to the storage devices in
accordance with the logical addresses;

adding an additional storage device to the
initial set, thus forming an extended set of the
storage devices comprising the initial set and the
additional storage device; and

redistributing the logical addresses among
the storage devices in the extended set so as to
cause a portion of the logical addresses to be
transferred from the storage devices in the initial
set to the additional storage device, while
maintaining the balanced access and while
maintaining the same logical addresses for the
logical addresses in the initial set of storage
devices that are not transferred to the additional
storage device.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Jacobson US 5,615,352 Mar. 25, 1997

David Karger et al. “Consistent Hashing and Random Trees:
Distributed Caching Protocols for Relieving Hot Spots on the World
Wide Web,” 29th Assoc. for Comp. Machinery (ACM) Symp. on
Theory of Computing, pp. 654-663 (1997) (hereinafter “Karger”).
3
Appeal 2009-004591
Application 10/620,080

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:

R1: Claims 1, 2, 5 to 10, 23, 24, and 27 to 32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for being anticipated by Jacobson.
R2: Claims 3, 4, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
being obvious over Jacobson in view of Karger.

Appellants contend that the Jacobson reference does not anticipate the
claimed subject matter, and that Jacobson in combination with Karger, does
not render the claimed subject matter unpatentable because Jacobson fails to
teach the claim limitation “redistributing the logical addresses … while
maintaining the same logical addresses for the logical addresses in the initial
set of storage devices that are not transferred to the additional storage
device.” (App. Br. 6, top to middle; 8, bottom to 9, top). The Examiner
contends that each of the claims is properly rejected (Ans. 6, middle).
We will review the rejections in the order argued, and as grouped in
the Briefs. We have only considered those arguments that Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments that 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).

ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a). The issue
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) specifically turns on whether Appellants’ claim
4
Appeal 2009-004591
Application 10/620,080

limitation “redistributing the logical addresses … while maintaining the
same logical addresses for the logical addresses in the initial set of storage
devices that are not transferred to the additional storage device” is the same
as Jacobson’s teachings for “remapping” or “reconfiguring.”

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Disclosure
1. Appellants have invented a system and method for data distribution
that includes adding an additional storage device to an initial set of storage
devices to create an extended set of storage devices. (See claims 1 and 23.)
The invention, as claimed, further includes redistributing logical addresses
among storage devices in an extended set while maintaining the same logical
addresses for the logical addresses in the initial set of storage devices that
are not transferred to the additional storage device (claim 1).
Jacobson
2. The Jacobson reference teaches a system and method for redundant data
storage that involves adding a storage device to an initial set of storage
devices to create an extended set of storage devices. (See col. 3, ll. 1-3.)
Jacobson teaches reconfiguring into an expanded “stripe” for storing a
predetermined amount of data (col. 2, ll. 16-17). The expanded “stripe”
spans across all storage disks, including the new storage disks (id. at ll.
18-19). Virtual storage spaces are updated and physical storage spaces
remapped (col. 3, ll. 4-7).
5
Appeal 2009-004591
Application 10/620,080

Karger
3. The Karger reference discloses consistent hashing, a method that
maintains a balanced load across hashes (Section 4, “Consistent Hashing”).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86
(Fed. Cir. 2006).

[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of
the document not only all of the limitations claimed but
also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the
same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to
prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus,
cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign et al., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (emphasis added).

ANALYSIS
Argument with respect to the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 5 to 10, 23, 24, and 27 to 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) [R1]

The Examiner finds that Jacobson teaches Appellants’ claim
limitation “redistributing the logical addresses … while maintaining the
same logical addresses for the logical addresses in the initial set of storage
devices that are not transferred to the additional storage device” in column 2
at lines 9 to 25 (Final Rej. 5, mailed October 16, 2006). The Examiner states
6
Appeal 2009-004591
Application 10/620,080

in the Answer that it would be apparent that Jacobson’s application level
virtual storage address (cited as Appellants’ claimed “logical addresses”)
remains constant for the set of data stripes that was not moved to the newly
added storage drive (Ans. 6, top).
In reply, Appellants contend:
Jacobson … does NOT teach that only data that
needs to be moved to a new disk is actually
transferred. [Jacobson’s data] is moved when
storage disks are added to the system, and there is
no [teaching] that the ‘another portion of the
physical disk storage space’ [in Jacobson] is
limited in any way to the new storage disk.
Therefore … Jacobson [is not] [‘]maintaining the
same logical addresses for the logical addresses in
the initial set of storage devices that are not
transferred to the additional storage device,[’] as
recited in claim 1.

(App. Br. 6, top to middle) (emphasis added).

We find persuasive Appellants’ above-stated argument and dispositive
of the issues presented on appeal. We find that Appellants have invented a
system and method for data distribution that includes adding an additional
storage device to an initial set of storage devices to create an extended set of
storage devices (FF#1). The invention, as claimed, further includes
redistributing logical addresses among storage devices in an extended set
while maintaining the same logical addresses for the logical addresses in the
initial set of storage devices that are not transferred to the additional storage
device (id.). In contrast, the Jacobson reference teaches a system and
method for redundant data storage that involves adding a storage device to
an initial set of storage devices to create an extended set of storage devices.
7
Appeal 2009-004591
Application 10/620,080

Jacobson teaches reconfiguring into an expanded “stripe” for storing a
predetermined amount of data (FF#2). The expanded “stripe” spans across
all storage disks, including the new storage disks. Virtual storage spaces are
updated and physical storage spaces remapped (id.).
Nowhere in Jacobson is there any teaching that Jacobson’s steps of
“reconfiguring” or “remapping” either explicitly or implicitly involve
“maintaining the same logical addresses for the logical addresses in the
initial set of storage devices that are not transferred to the additional storage
device,” as recited in Appellants’ claim 1. In the “Response to Arguments”
section of the Answer, the Examiner offers explanatory drawings of the
proposed reading of Jacobson “to clearly illustrate how the logical addresses
would remain the same for data stripes that were not moved.” (Ans. 5,
middle). Further, without citation, the Examiner reaches the conclusion that
“even if we were to consider that the data is being moved within the initial
set, it would be apparent that the logical addresses (Application level virtual
storage address) remain constant for the set of data stripes that was [sic] not
moved.” (Ans. 6, top). However, we find no grounding for that conclusion
in the four corners of the Jacobson reference, see Net MoneyIN, Inc. v.
VeriSign, cited above, supporting the Examiner’s statements on the record
(id.). In light of the lack of support for the Examiner’s findings and in
accordance with the teachings of Net MoneyIN, Inc., we find error in the
rejection of claim 1.

8
Appeal 2009-004591
Application 10/620,080

Argument with respect to the rejection
of claims 3, 4, 25, and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) [R2]

The Examiner relied upon Jacobson to provide the essential teaching
of “redistributing the logical addresses … while maintaining the same
logical addresses for the logical addresses in the initial set of storage devices
that are not transferred to the additional storage device,” as recited in claim
1. Since we found above that the base reference Jacobson is deficient (see
supra), we necessarily find error in the rejection [R2] of dependent claims 3,
4, 25, and 26.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 to 10 and 23 to 32.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections [R1 and R2] of claims 1 to 10
and 23 to 32.

REVERSED

peb
GRIFFITHS & SEATON PLLC (IBM2)
2108 N. LEMON STREET
MESA, AZ 85215
9