Ex Parte Jibbe et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 5, 201613195980 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 5, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/195,980 08/02/2011 24319 7590 Broadcom Limited 4380 Ziegler Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 07/07/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mahmoud K. Jibbe 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 1496.00757 /Lll-0054US1 2979 EXAMINER PARK, JEONG S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/07/2016 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): patent.info@broadcom.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MAHMOUD K. JIBBE, DHISHANKAR SENGUPTA, and KRISHANU DHAR Appeal2015-001457 Application 13/195,980 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-14, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest LSI Corporation (App. Br. 3). Appeal2015-001457 Application 13/195,980 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention relates to a method and apparatus for data storage and backup of configuration settings in a storage area network environment using a management interface (Spec. 1 ). It provides a solution to the problem of interoperability between different storage vendor devices through the use of a common administration computer which interfaces the replication of network components from different manufacturers (Spec. 2- 3). Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows (the disputed limitation is italicized). 1. A method for backing up components in a mixed vendor network using a common administration computer, comprising the steps of: (A) sending a plurality of first requests to a plurality of components of a first network; (B) storing responses to said first requests in said common administration computer; and (C) sending a plurality of second requests to a plurality of components in a second network in response to said stored plurality of first requests, wherein (i) said first network comprises components from a first manufacturer, (ii) said second network comprises components from a second manufacturer, and (iii) said second network replicates configuration parameters of said first network in response to said plurality of second requests. 2 Appeal2015-001457 Application 13/195,980 Arakawa Tanaka Bankston Madnani Balasubramanian References US 2003/0204597 Al US 2006/0221721 A 1 US 2007 /0005662 Al US 2008/0005507 Al US 2010/0332646 Al The Examiner's Rejections Oct. 30, 2003 Oct. 5, 2006 Jan.4,2007 Jan. 3,2008 Dec. 30, 2010 Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arakawa, Tanaka, and Bankston (Final Act. 2-8). Claims 3, 6, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arakawa, Tanaka, and Bankston and further in view of Balasubramanian (Final Act. 8-9). Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Arakawa, Tanaka, and Bankston and further in view of Madnani (Final Act. 9-10). Appellants' Contentions The Appellants' dispute in this case boils down to whether a combination of the cited art discloses a second network that replicates configuration parameters of a first network. App. Br. 8. In particular, Appellants argue: (1) Arakawa at best discloses various systems for copying user data from one network to another network, or replicating a logical volume to another location in the storage subsystem, and does not suggest configuration parameters used to configure the subsystems taught nor replicating the configuration parameters of the first network. Id. at 8-9; 3 Appeal2015-001457 Application 13/195,980 Reply Br. 4. The Examiner's conclusion that configuration parameters are somehow inherent in the copied data of Arakawa is incorrect. Reply Br. 5. (2) Tanaka and Bankston do not cure the deficiencies of Arakawa because Tanaka is related to data migration rather than replicating one or more configuration parameters on a second network (App. Br. 10), and merely teaches storing certain configuration information in a file. Reply Br. 6. Bankston has similar shortcomings to those of Tanaka involving the copying of data between storage devices. Reply Br. 5. (3) The Examiner tries to equate the logical volume to the claimed components of a first network. One skilled in the art would not generally consider the logical volume of Arakawa to be the same as a component. Reply Br. 4. ISSUE Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Arakawa, Tanaka, and Bankston collectively would have taught or suggested configuration parameters replicated on the second network as claimed? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments under contentions (1 }-(3) that the Examiner has erred (App. Br. 9). We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. We adopt as our own (i.) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii.) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the 4 Appeal2015-001457 Application 13/195,980 Examiner's Answer (Ans. 13-14) in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims comprising claims 1-14 as Appellants have not argued any of the other claims in this group with particularity.2 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relied on Arakawa as disclosing a first and second network, sending a plurality of first requests to a plurality of components in a first network from a first manufacturer, storing the first requests, sending a plurality of second requests to a plurality of components in a second network from a second manufacturer (Final Act. 3--4). The Examiner further relied on Tanaka as teaching a common administration computer connected to the first and second network (Final Act. 4--5), and Bankston as teaching that the second network replicates configuration parameters of the first network in response to the plurality of second requests (Final Act. 5---6). Appellants' arguments are essentially premised on considering the references individually rather than in combination. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCP A 1981 ). Each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a 2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-14. Although claims 2-14 are presented under separate headings, Appellants merely reference the arguments presented for claim 1 without presenting any additional arguments to establish separate patentability. Therefore, we treat claim 1 as representative for claims 2-14. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 5 Appeal2015-001457 Application 13/195,980 whole. See Jn re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have provided no persuasive evidence that modifying the first and second network storage structure of Arakawa to include replication of configuration parameters as taught by Bankston would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Regarding Appellants' contention ( 1 ), the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Bankston, not Arakawa or Tanaka, teaches the contested limitation: "Arakawa in view of Tanaka does not teach replicating configuration parameters of the migration-source storage device to the migration-destination storage device" (Final Act. 5; Ans. 13 (citing Bankston i-fi-19 and 25)). Specifically, the Examiner finds "Bankston teaches synchronization mechanism automatically replicates any change in the configuration database to servers in the server farm" (Ans. 13 (citing Bankston i1 25) ), and "the invention provides a server farm configuration management infrastructure that is extensible and automatically replicating" (Final Act. 5 (citing Bankston i1 9) ). We further note from Bankston, "Embodiments of the invention also provide a synchronization mechanism that automatically replicates any change in the configuration database 218 to servers in the server farm 104" (Bankston i125). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that replication of the configuration parameters is taught by Bankston. Appellants' contention (2) that Tanaka is related to data migration and does not teach the replication of configuration settings (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 5---6) are unpersuasive because Bankston was relied on by the Examiner as shown supra. Further, Appellants' arguments that Bankston has similar 6 Appeal2015-001457 Application 13/195,980 shortcomings involving the copying of data between storage devices rather than replicating one or more configuration parameters on a second network are unpersuasive for the following reasons. Firstly, the Examiner finds that Arakawa rather than Bankston or Tanaka teaches a first and a second network (Final Act. 3). Secondly, the Examiner finds that it is configuration parameters that are copied rather than any type of storage data as discussed supra. Regarding contention (3), in the absence of a showing of good cause by Appellants, we decline to consider an argument raised for the first time in the Reply Brief. This is because, as the Examiner has not been provided a chance to respond, and in the absence of a showing of good cause by Appellants, these arguments are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41 (b )(2). ("Properly interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause"). Appellants have provided no such showing of good cause in the record before us. In this case, even if we consider Appellants' above contention (3), we agree with the Examiner that the configuration parameter components taught by Bankston, as discussed supra, may be combined with the components of a first network logical volume taught by Arakawa for the purpose of automatic replication (Final Act. 6). Stated differently, Arakawa does not need to teach the claimed components of a first network since Bankston is relied on to teach these components. 7 Appeal2015-001457 Application 13/195,980 CONCLUSION As discussed herein, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1 as well as the remaining claims 2-14, which are not argued separately or based on reasoning different from those discussed above (see App. Br. 11-20). DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation