Ex Parte Hayardeny et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201310673733 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013) 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. 10/673,733 09/29/2003 Amiram Hayardeny IL920030031US1 1932 7590 02/28/2013 Stephen C. Kaufman Intellectual Property Law Dept. IBM Corporation P.O. Box 218 Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 EXAMINER KIM, PAUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte AMIRAM HAYARDENY, MARTIN TROSS, and AVIAD ZLOTNICK ____________________ Appeal 2010-000311 Application 10/673,733 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-000311 Application 10/673,733 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 17, 19, and 20. Claims 18 and 21-60 have been canceled. (App. Br. 1). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to data storage systems and, specifically, to data mirroring for failure protection in storage systems. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for managing a data storage system that includes primary and secondary storage subsystems, including respective first and second non-volatile storage media, the method comprising: maintaining a record on the secondary storage subsystem, which is predictive of locations to which data are to be written on the primary storage subsystem by a host processor, the record including a designation of locations to which the host is expected to write in the near future; receiving at the primary storage subsystem, from the host processor, the data to be written to a specified location on the first non-volatile storage media; making a determination that the specified location is not included in the record, and responsively to the determination sending a message from the primary storage subsystem to the secondary storage subsystem so as to cause the secondary storage subsystem to update the record, wherein sending the message causes the secondary storage subsystem to predict one or more further locations to Appeal 2010-000311 Application 10/673,733 3 which the host processor has not yet written the data and is expected to write the data in a subsequent write operation, and to set a number of predicted locations in the record corresponding to the one or more further locations; signaling the host processor that the data have been stored in the data storage system responsively to receiving the data and, upon having made the determination that the specified location was not included in the record, responsively to receiving an acknowledgment at the primary storage subsystem from the secondary storage subsystem indicating that the record has been updated; and storing the data in the specified location on both the first and second non-volatile storage media. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Yanai US 5,742,792 Apr. 21, 1998 Dunham US 6,269,431 Bl Jul. 31, 2001 Armangau US 2004/0267836 Al Dec. 30, 2004 (filed Jun. 25, 2003) REJECTIONS Claims 1-12 and 19-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yanai in view of Armangau. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yanai in view of Armangau and Dunham. Claims 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yanai in view of Armangau, Dunham, and Official Notice. Appeal 2010-000311 Application 10/673,733 4 ANALYSIS With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants maintain that the Examiner has persisted in mixing up the roles of the stored system with those of the host processor and the Examiner has equated the predictive record of independent claim 1 with the Yanai reference's log file. (Reply Br. 2). We agree with Appellants' contention. The Examiner clarifies the interpretation of the prior art as it is applied to the claimed invention. (Ans. 10). The Examiner maintains that: the log file (i.e. the record) maintains an index of data which has not been mirrored or copied (i.e. data to be written) and a list of invalid data storage device locations or tracks (i.e. predictive locations to which data may be written through the exclusion of invalid locations), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Yanai would indeed disclose the limitation of "maintaining a record on the secondary storage subsystem, which is predictive of locations to which data are to be written on the primary storage subsystem by a host processor." (Ans. 10). While the Examiner maintains that the available valid memory locations are the "predictive locations," we cannot agree with the Examiner's overly broad interpretation. Appellants' maintain that the log file is not predictive of future host writes in any way at all. (Reply Br. 3). We agree with Appellants. Additionally, Appellants' argue that: Upon receiving data from the host processor to be written to a specified location in the primary storage subsystem, and determining that this particular location is not included in the predictive record, the primary storage subsystem sends a message to the secondary storage subsystem. This message causes the secondary storage subsystem to update its predictive Appeal 2010-000311 Application 10/673,733 5 record not only to include the specified location for this write operation, but also to predict and add to the record one or more further locations to which the host processor is expected to write in a subsequent write operation but has not yet written data. (App. Br. 6-7). We conclude the Examiner's interpretation of the "predictive locations in the record" to be unreasonable in light of the further limitations recited in the language of independent claim 1. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness is in error for independent claim 1, based upon the teachings of Yanai and Armangau. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection independent claim 1, and its corresponding dependent claims 2-9, 19, and 20. Independent claim 10 contains commensurate limitations found in independent claim 1 and the Examiner maintains the same basis for the rejection. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11 and 12. The Examiner has not identified how the teachings of Dunham or Official Notice remedy the noted deficiency. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of dependent claims 13-17. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-17, 19, and 20 based upon obviousness. Appeal 2010-000311 Application 10/673,733 6 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-17, 19, and 20 are reversed. REVERSED pgc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation