NetApp Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 28, 2021

2020000838 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2021)

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.
15/008,724 01/28/2016 Akhil Kaushik P01-010776.01.US.PRI 3443
81744 7590 07/28/2021
Cooper Legal Group LLC
6505 Rockside Road
Suite 330
Independence, OH 44131
EXAMINER
AHMED, ZUBAIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2132
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2021 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@cooperlegalgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AKHIL KAUSHIK, ANIL KUMAR PONNAPUR,
ARAVIND SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN, and
MANOJ KUMAR V. SUNDARARAJAN
Appeal 2020-000838
Application 15/008,724
Technology Center 2100

Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed January 28, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final
Office Action, mailed April 3, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed
August 2, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed September 19,
2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed November 13, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NetApp Inc. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000838
Application 15/008,724
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a resilient implementation of client file
operations and replication. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with
labels added and a disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
[(i)(a)] executing, by a second device, a first replication
operation received from a first device as a replica of an original
operation executed by the first device, the original operation and
the first replication operation assigned a first sequence number,
[(i)(b)] wherein the first replication operation is a replica of a
storage operation executed by the first device;
[(ii)] adding an entry into an operation response map to
indicate that the first replication operation was performed out of
sequence based upon the first sequence number being out of
sequence with respect to a cumulative sequence number;
[(iii)] determining that a second replication operation is a
retry of the already executed first replication operation based
upon the second replication operation being assigned the first
sequence number specified within the entry of the operation
response map;
[(iv)(a)] terminating the second replication operation
received from the first device based upon the second replication
operation being the retry of the first replication operation,
[(iv)(b)] wherein the second replication operation is a replica of
the storage operation executed by the first device;
[(v)] transmitting a response to the first device that the first
replication operation was already executed and the second
replication operation was terminated; and
[(vi)] increasing an amount of resources provisioned for
executing replication operations based upon an increasing gap
between the cumulative sequence number and a largest sequence
number of replication operations executed by the second device.
Appeal 2020-000838
Application 15/008,724
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Chen US 2005/0154846 A1 July 14, 2005
Morishita US 2006/0277378 A1 Dec. 7, 2006
Wei US 2015/0261443 A1 Sept. 17, 2015
Golden US 2016/0098191 A1 Apr. 7, 2016

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–8 and 10–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Golden, Chen, and Morishita. Final Act. 3–14.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Golden, Chen, Morishita, and Wei. Final Act. 14–15.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

OPINION
We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).

Appeal 2020-000838
Application 15/008,724
4
Examiner’s Findings and Appellant’s Contentions of Error
The Examiner finds Golden’s disclosure of a system that maintains a
history of remapped data in a storage system teaches a method for executing,
by a second device, a first replication operation from a first device, the
original operation on the first device assigned a first sequence number that
tracks cumulative sequence numbers using an operation response map (claim
elements (i)(a), (ii), (iii), and (iv(a))). Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner further
finds Golden teaches the disputed limitation of increasing an amount of
resources provisioned for executing replication operations based on an
increasing gap between the cumulative sequence number and a largest
sequence number of replication operations executed by the second device
(claim element (vi)). Id. at 4–5 citing Golden Fig. 5, ¶ 59. According to the
Examiner Golden’s medium 405 is “based on an increasing gap between the
sequence number 314 and the highest sequence number 355 at the time
medium 405 was created” thereby teaching the disputed amount of
resources. Id. at 5 citing Golden Fig. 5, ¶¶ 10, 59. In particular, the
Examiner maps sequence number 314 to the claimed cumulative sequence
number. Id. at 3–4. The Examiner relies on Chen and Morishita for
teaching the remaining claim elements (i)(b), (iv)(b), and (vi), which are not
in dispute.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding that Golden teaches
disputed claim element (vi). Appeal Br. 8. According to Appellant, Golden
discloses recording a highest sequence number in existence when the new
medium is allocated. Id. at 9 citing Golden ¶ 10. That is, according to
Appellant, Golden’s highest sequence number represents a threshold value
such that only data having a higher sequence number are replicated. Id.
Appeal 2020-000838
Application 15/008,724
5
Appellant contends that this medium allocation is not an increase of
provisioning of resources based on an increasing gap between sequence
numbers. Id.
Analysis
Appellant’s contention is persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Golden discloses “when a new medium is allocated in the storage system,
the storage controller may record the highest sequence number in existence
at the moment when the new medium was allocated.” Golden ¶ 10.
However, Golden does not describe that the criteria for allocating new media
is based upon an increasing gap between sequence numbers. Although
Golden describes relocating data from one portion of a medium hierarchy to
another during the operation of the storage system (id. ¶ 8), the Examiner
fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning explaining why relocating
data into allocated medium teaches or suggests increasing an amount of
resources provisioned for executing replication operations based upon an
increasing gap.
Furthermore, although Golden’s replication of data may be based on a
gap in sequence numbers, i.e., “mapping table entries with sequence
numbers higher than the sequence number stored for the new medium in the
medium history table” (Golden ¶ 10), we find no disclosure that
provisioning of resources is based on an increasing gap. See, e.g., Spec.
¶ 67 (“Resources, provisioned for implementing replication operations, may
be adjusted based upon the gap (e.g., more resources may be allocated as the
gap increases in order to subsequently reduce the gap).”) The Examiner’s
application of Golden’s largest sequence number being recorded when the
new medium is created is not persuasive evidence of the increasing gap
Appeal 2020-000838
Application 15/008,724
6
required by the claim. See Final Act. 4–5 citing to Golden ¶ 10. Thus, even
though Golden discloses utilizing a sequence number to determine which
data to replicate, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner fails to provide
sufficient evidence that Golden teaches or suggests provisioning more
resources for implementing the replication operations based on the
increasing gap as required by the claim.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1,
or the rejection of independent claims 17 and 20 which include language
similar to the argued limitation of claim 1. Nor do we sustain the rejection
of dependent claims 2–16, 18, and 19 which stand with their respective base
claims.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8 and 10–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Golden, Chen, and Morishita.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Golden, Chen, Morishita, and Wei.

Appeal 2020-000838
Application 15/008,724
7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 10–
20
103 Golden, Chen,
Morishita
1–8, 10–20
9 103 Golden, Chen,
Morishita, Wei
9
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED