Ex Parte Zohar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2013

11709000 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte OFIR ZOHAR, HAIM HELMAN, DROR COHEN,
SHEMER SCHWARTZ, YARON REVAH, and EFRI ZEIDNER
_____________

Appeal 2011-002503
Application 11/709,000
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and STACEY G.
WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-002503
Application 11/709,000

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 17. Claims 18-20 have been canceled.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a data storage server/system where the
data is mirrored on a remote data storage server/system. See paragraphs 6-7
and Figures 1 and 6A of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is representative
of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A data storage system configured to be coupled to one or
more data clients, said data storage system comprising:
a plurality of backup storage systems; and
a primary storage system comprising one or more servers
and at least two interfaces coupled to said one or more servers,
wherein each of said at least two interfaces includes a dynamic
communication port configured to communicate with said
plurality of backup storage systems and said one or more data
clients, and wherein each of said at least two interfaces is
configured to provide said plurality of backup storage systems
and said one or more data clients with access to said primary
data storage system based on a policy rule base.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 6, 16, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over O’Hare (U.S. Patent 6,766,397 B2, Jul.
20, 2004) and Eguchi (U.S. 2005/0193167 A1, Sep. 1, 2005). Answer 3-6.
1

1
Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief dated May
27, 2010, Appellants’ Reply Brief dated October 18, 2010 and the
Examiner’s Answer dated August 19, 2010.
Appeal 2011-002503
Application 11/709,000

3

The Examiner has rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Hare, Eguchi, and Ibrahim (U.S. 2003/0149848 A1,
Aug. 7, 2003). Answer 6.
The Examiner has rejected claims 8 through 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over O’Hare, Eguchi, and Morita (U.S.
2005/0228947 A1, Oct. 13, 2005). Answer 6-8.
The Examiner has rejected claims 11 through 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over O’Hare, Eguchi, and Coronado (U.S.
2005/0114591 A1, May 26, 2005). Answer 8-9.

ISSUE
Appellants argue on pages 8 through 17 of the Appeal Brief and pages
2 through 3 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 6, 16 and 17 is in error. These arguments present us with the issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of O’Hare and
Eguchi teaches at least two interfaces coupled to one or more servers,
wherein each of the interfaces includes a communication port configured to
communicate with plural backup storage systems and one or more data
clients as recited in representative claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We disagree with
Appellants’ conclusion the Examiner erred in finding that the combination
of O’Hare and Eguchi teaches at least two interfaces coupled to one or more
Appeal 2011-002503
Application 11/709,000

4

servers, wherein each of the interfaces includes a communication port
configured to communicate with plural backup storage systems and one or
more data clients. Appellants’ arguments address each reference separately.
Appellants argue that O’Hare does not teach a server. Brief 9-10,
Reply Brief 2-3. We are not persuaded of error by these arguments.
With respect to O’Hare, the Examiner interpreted the claim term
“server” to be a data storage device that remotely communicates data to
clients, and, as such, finds that O’Hare’s data storage device 22 meets the
claimed “server.” Answer 9-10. Appellants have not shown, nor do we
find, that the Examiner’s claim interpretation is inconsistent with either the
Specification or the plain meaning of the term “server.” In addition,
Appellants have not demonstrated that O’Hare’s device 22 does not meet
this definition of a server.
Further, with respect to Eguchi, Appellants assert that, though
multiple external subsystems 21a-21n are disclosed, Figures 1 and 2 do not
depict how they connect to subsystems 20a-20n, and, as such, Eguchi does
not disclose two or more interfaces as claimed. Brief 11-17, Reply Brief 4-
5. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments.
The Examiner finds that Eguchi discloses plural subsystems 21a-21n,
which mirror/backup the storage subsystem 20, and that these subsystems
communicate with each other via a second I/O network. Answer 11-13. We
concur with the Examiner. While Figures 1 and 2 do not depict more than
one of the storage subsystems 21, the text of Eguchi, makes clear that there
are more than one and each communicates with one or more of storage
subsystems 20 via the second network. Further, the text and figures make
clear that storage subsystem 20 communicates with both the first network
Appeal 2011-002503
Application 11/709,000

5

via port 104a of I/O adapter 102(to which the client is connected) and the
second network (to which the external subsystems are connected) through
port 104b of I/O adapter 102. See ¶¶ 0059, 0062, 0074, and 0076. Thus,
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2 through 6, 16, and 17, similarly rejected and not
separately argued.
We similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 through 15.
Appellants’ arguments directed to these claims merely assert that the
rejections are in error for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 and
that the additional references do not cure the defects in the rejection based
upon the combination of O’Hare and Eguchi. Brief 17-20. As discussed
supra, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection based upon
the combination of O’Hare and Eguchi. As such, we are not persuaded of
error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7 through 15 for the same
reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 17 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

ELD