Ex Parte Jibbe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 5, 2016

13195980 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 5, 2016)

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