Axxana (Israel) Ltd.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 3, 20202019000890 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 15/261,952 09/11/2016 Alex Winokur 1034-1007.4 9316 82253 7590 12/03/2020 KLIGLER & ASSOCIATES PATENT ATTORNEYS LTD. P.O. Box 57651 Tel Aviv, 61576 ISRAEL EXAMINER GEBRIL, MOHAMED M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2135 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/03/2020 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): alon@dkpat.co.il daniel@dkpat.co.il info@dkpat.co.il PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ALEX WINOKUR ____________________ Appeal 2019-000890 Application 15/261,952 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and BETH SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–8, 10–18, and 20 (Appeal Br. 1), which constitute all claims pending in this application.1 Claims 9 and 19 were previously cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Axxana (Israel) Ltd. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-000890 Application 15/261,952 2 A. INVENTION According to Appellant, the claimed invention relates to “data protection systems,” and particularly to “protecting mirrored data against disaster events using disaster-proof storage devices.” Spec. 1:8–10. B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below: An apparatus for data protection, comprising: a data storage device; and an appliance, which is configured to: (i) communicate via a storage area network (SAN) with a first group of primary storage volumes, to which data storage transactions are applied via the SAN by local servers, and communicate via a wide area network (WAN) with a second group of backup storage volumes, to which ordered series of the data storage transactions are replicated; (ii) periodically write, via the SAN, a sequence of indexed transactions to a protection application field, which is dedicated in one of the primary storage volumes for assessment of a data gap (DG) between the primary storage volumes and the backup storage volumes, whereby the indexed transactions are replicated within the ordered series of the data storage transactions to a corresponding one of the backup storage volumes; (iii) store respective records of the transactions in the ordered series in the data storage device while maintaining order of the series; and (iv) periodically read, via the WAN, the indexed transactions from the corresponding one of the backup storage volumes and, upon reading a given indexed transaction from among the indexed transactions that were replicated to the one of the backup storage volumes, erase from the data storage device all of the records of the transactions that preceded the given indexed transaction in the ordered series. Appeal 2019-000890 Application 15/261,952 3 C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Name Reference Date Winokur WO 2006/111958 A2 Oct. 26, 2006 Erofeev US 2007/0226438 A1 Sep. 27, 2007 Lubbers US 2003/0187861 A1 Oct. 2, 2003 Takahashi US 2008/0177964 A1 Jul. 24, 2008 Fellin US 2004/0078637 A1 Apr. 22, 2004 Wong US 2007/0061379 A1 Mar. 15, 2007 Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10–12, 16, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Winokur, Erofeev, and Lubbers. Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Winokur, Erofeev, Lubbers, and Takahashi. Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Winokur, Erofeev, Lubbers, and Fellin. Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Winokur, Erofeev, Lubbers, and Wong. II. ISSUES The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in determining that the combination of Winokur, Erofeev and Lubbers teaches or suggests 1) “periodically write, via the SAN, a sequence of indexed transactions to a protection application field, which is dedicated in one of the primary storage volumes for assessment of a data gap (DG) between the primary storage volumes and the backup storage volumes,” whereby the indexed transactions are replicated to a corresponding one of the backup Appeal 2019-000890 Application 15/261,952 4 storage volumes; and 2) “periodically read . . . the indexed transactions from the corresponding one of the backup storage volumes,” wherein upon reading a given indexed transaction from among the indexed transactions that were replicated to the one of the backup storage volumes, “erase from the data storage device all of the records of the transactions that preceded the given indexed transaction in the ordered series.” Claim 1. III. ANALYSIS A. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10–12, 16, 17, and 20 Appellant contends that the claimed invention “addresses the problem of managing the size of the data gap, using a sequence of indexed transactions that are written by an appliance to a protection application field in one of a group of primary storage volumes.” App. Br. 6. According to Appellant, these “indexed transactions” are referred to in the specification as “artificial write transactions” because “they are written by the appliance for the purpose of data gap assessment” and “not actual data storage,” and then “replicated as part of this ordered series to the backup storage volumes,” wherein the appliance “stores records of the transactions in the ordered series to a data storage device.” Id. at 6–7. Further, according to Appellant, the appliance then periodically reads the indexed transactions from the back up storage volume, and upon finding this periodic reading that a given indexed transaction has been successfully replicated to the backup storage volume, “the appliance is able to conclude that all of the previous transactions in the ordered series have also been replicated,” and the appliance “is thus able, with full confidence, to erase the records of all of these previous transactions from the data storage device.” Id. at 7 (emphasis in original). Appeal 2019-000890 Application 15/261,952 5 According to Appellant, although the Examiner relies on the primary reference to Winokur for the replication of data “for storage in a backup storage volume,” Winokur is silent as to “maintaining the order of a series of storage transactions,” “writing indexed transactions from an appliance to a primary storage volume for replication within an ordered series of data storage transactions,” or “data gap assessment.” Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant contends that, even if Winokur were to be combined with the secondary references to Erofeev and Lubbers, the combination still fails to disclose or suggest “[p]eriodically writing a sequence of indexed transactions to a protection application field in one of the primary storage volumes (for replication within an ordered series of data transactions)” and “[p]eriodically reading the indexed transactions from a corresponding backup storage volume, and erasing the records of all preceding data transactions in the series,” as claimed. Id. at 9 (emphasis omitted). We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and evidence presented. We agree with Appellant that the preponderance of the evidence on this record does not support the Examiner’s legal conclusion that claim 1, claim 11 reciting similar limitations, and claims 2, 6, 7, 10, 12, 16, 17, and 20 depending respectively therefrom, would have been obvious over Winokur, Erofeev, and Lubbers. Winokur discloses a method for data protection which includes sending data for storage in a primary storage and then a secondary storage device, wherein while awaiting an indication of successful storage of the data in the secondary storage device, a record associated with the data is temporarily stored in a disaster-proof storage unit. Winokur Abstract. Appeal 2019-000890 Application 15/261,952 6 Figure 1A of Winokur shows a system for data protection, and is reproduced below: Figure 1A of Winokur shows system 20 for storing data produced and/or used by data resources 24. Winokur, 9:17. As shown in Figure 1A, system 20 mirrors (i.e., replicates) the data and stores it in primary storage device 28 and then secondary storage device 32, wherein the two storage devices hold replicas of the organization data, in mirrored configuration. Id. at 9:23–26. In order to ensure guaranteed storage in secondary storage device 32, the data is temporarily cached in secure storage devices 48. Id. at 17:30–31. Winokur’s data protection method begins with mirroring application 36 accepting a write command from one of data sources 24 and sending the data to primary storage device 28. Id. at 17:32–18:1. After primary storage device 28 successfully stores the data, it sends an acknowledgement back to mirroring application 36, and mirroring application 36 accepts the Appeal 2019-000890 Application 15/261,952 7 acknowledgement. Id. at 18:1–4. Protection processor 44 accepts the write command and stores it in one or more of secure storage devices 48, produces a respective record, and stores the record in the one or more of secure storage devices 48. Id. at 18:5–12. Protection processor 44 then checks whether an acknowledgement from secondary storage device 32 was received, maintains the respective record cached in secure storage devices 48, and when an acknowledgement is received from secondary storage device 32, deletes the respective record from secure storage devices 48. Id. at 18:24–29. As Appellant points out, this section in Winokur fails to teach or suggest a step to “periodically write, via the SAN, a sequence of indexed transactions to a protection application field, which is dedicated in one of the primary storage volumes” for assessment of a data gap between the primary storage volumes and the backup storage volumes, as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 11. See Appeal Br. 9. In particular, although Winokur discloses storing data produced and/or used by data resources (Winokur, 9:17–26),we do not find any teaching or suggestion in the referenced sections of Winokur of periodically writing “via the SAN” of “indexed transactions,” where these “indexed transactions” are “artificial write transactions” that “are written by the appliance for the purpose of data gap assessment” and “not actual data storage,” as described in the Specification. Id. at 6–7 (emphasis added); compare claim 1 with Winokur, 9:17:26, Fig. 1A. Furthermore, the section in Winokur relied by the Examiner also fails to teach or suggest a step to “periodically read . . . the indexed transactions from the corresponding one of the backup storage volumes,” wherein upon Appeal 2019-000890 Application 15/261,952 8 reading a given indexed transaction from among the indexed transactions that were replicated to the one of the backup storage volumes, “erase from the data storage device all of the records of the transactions that preceded the given indexed transaction in the ordered series,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 11. See Appeal Br. 9. In particular, although Winokur discloses deleting the respective temporarily-stored record from secure storage devices when receiving an acknowledgement from secondary storage device (Winokur, 18:24–29),we do not find any teaching or suggestion in the referenced sections of Winokur of “periodically reading . . . the indexed transactions from the corresponding one of the backup storage volumes,” i.e., Winokur’s “secondary storage device 32,” and, “upon reading a given indexed transaction from among the indexed transactions that were replicated to the one of the backup storage volumes, erase from the data storage device all of the records of the transactions that preceded the given indexed transaction in the ordered series.” Id. at 6–7 (emphasis added). Instead, Winokur discloses that when an acknowledgement is received from secondary storage device (rather than upon periodically reading the secondary storage device), deleting the respective record (rather than all records of preceding transactions) from secure storage devices. Compare claim 1 with Winokur, 18:24–29. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by the Examiner’s finding that the claimed “data storage device” encompasses Winokur’s apparatus including “secure storage unit 48, secondary storage device 32 and primary storage device 28,” or that the claimed “protection appliance” encompasses Winokur’s “protection processor 44.” Final Act. 3–5. The Examiner has not established on this record that the additionally cited secondary references to Appeal 2019-000890 Application 15/261,952 9 Erofeev and Lubbers overcome the deficiencies of Winokur. See id. at 5–7. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding Appellant’s claim 1, and independent claim 11 including limitations of commensurate scope, would have been obvious over the combination of Winokur, Erofeev and Lubbers. Dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 10, 12, 16, 17, and 20 depend respectively from claims 1 and 11, and thus, stand therewith. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10–12, 16, 17, and 20 over Winokur, Erofeev and Lubbers. B. Claims 3 and 13 The Examiner does not suggest, and has not established on this record, that the additionally cited Takahashi reference overcomes the aforementioned deficiencies of Winokur, Erofeev and Lubbers. See Final Act. 12–13. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Winokur, Erofeev, Lubbers and Takahashi renders obvious Appellant’s dependent claims 3 and 13 depending respectively from independent claims 1 and 11. C. Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 The Examiner does not suggest, and has not established on this record, that the additionally cited Fellin reference overcomes the aforementioned deficiencies of Winokur, Erofeev and Lubbers. See Final Act. 13–16. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Winokur, Erofeev, Lubbers and Fellin renders obvious Appellant’s dependent claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 depending respectively from independent claims 1 and 11. Appeal 2019-000890 Application 15/261,952 10 D. Claims 8 and 18 The Examiner does not suggest, and has not established on this record, that the additionally cited Wong reference overcomes the aforementioned deficiencies of Winokur, Erofeev and Lubbers. See Final Act. 16–17. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Winokur, Erofeev, Lubbers and Wong renders obvious Appellant’s dependent claims 8 and 18 depending respectively from independent claims 1 and 11. IV. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–8, 10–18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 10– 15, 17 103(a) Winokur, Erofeev, Lubbers 1, 2, 6, 7, 10–12, 16, 17, 20 3, 13 103(a) Winokur, Erofeev, Lubbers, Takahashi 3, 13 4, 5, 14, 15 103(a) Winokur, Erofeev, Lubbers, Fellin 4, 5, 14, 15 8, 18 103(a) Winokur, Erofeev, Lubbers, Wong 8, 18 Overall Outcome 1–8, 10– 18, 20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation