Ex Parte MUPPIRALA

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 12, 2016

12851558 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/851,558 08/06/2010 Kishore Kumar MUPPIRALA
56436 7590 01/14/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82258598 1960
EXAMINER
BETIT, JACOB F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01114/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KISHORE KUMAR MUPPIRALA
Appeal2014-000011
Application 12/851,558
Technology Center 2100
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-000011
Application 12/851,558
STATEMENT OF CASE 1
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant invented systems and methods that provide an application
based quality of service ("QoS") by classifying application commands.
Spec. ,-r 11.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
receiving an application command associated with a
classification parameter, wherein the application command and
classification parameter is generated by an application in a first
device;
determining, \~1ith the first device, a classification value
based on the classification parameter;
associating, with the first device, the classification value
with the application command; and
sending the application command and the classification
value to a second device for processing.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Powell US 2010/0180066 Al
Voigt et al. US 2008/0162735 Al
July 15, 2010
(filed Jan. 13, 2009)
July 3, 2008
1 Our decision makes reference to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.,"
filed Apr. 30, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 09, 2013), and
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 09, 2013) and Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed Jan. 08, 2013).
2
Appeal2014-000011
Application 12/851,558
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Voigt. Final Act. 3-8.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Voigt and Powell. Final Act. 9-10.
ISSUES
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-10 and
12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Voigt turns on (1) whether
Voigt discloses "receiving an application command associated with a
classification parameter" and "determining ... a classification value based
on the classification parameter," (2) whether the claimed method is
performed in Voigt "in a first device," and (3) whether Voigt teaches away
from the claimed method being performed "in a first device," as recited by
independent claim 1 and similarly recited by independent claims 6 and 10.
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Voigt and Powell turns on whether
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 10 are found persuasive.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 rejected under 35 USC§ 102(b) as anticipated by
Voigt
Appellant contends that Voigt discloses that "all commands from a
server or an application ... will be assigned a particular group number and a
priority number." App. Br. 9 (citing Voigt i-fi-18, 16, 30, 38) (emphasis
omitted); see Reply Br. 4---6. Accordingly, Appellant contends that Voigt
discloses "mapping an application directly to a particular priority number
and a particular group number," but fails to disclose "mapping a
3
Appeal2014-000011
Application 12/851,558
classification parameter included in the application command itself to a
classification value." Id. at 9-10.
We disagree with Appellant. As found by the Examiner, the term
"classification parameter" encompasses application commands such as data
read/write requests, and further encompasses an ID that identifies the
application generating the application command. Ans. 3 (citing Spec. i-fi-f 14,
16, 43). Voigt discloses "a method for extending the sophistication of QoS
management through a specific use of the [Small Computer System Interface
(SCSI)] group number relative to the SCSI priority field." Voigt i18. Voigt
further discloses that "host computers run different operating systems with
multiple different applications simultaneously executing on each host
computer" and, thus, "hosts make I/O requests ... to storage devices." Id. i1
16. Each SCSI command designates the initiator, the target, a priority field,
and a group number field. Id. i130. An administrator or operating system
can assign particular group numbers to each host or application, and the
group number is included in the I/O commands from the host or application
to the target. Id. i138. Although Appellant agrees that Voigt discloses this
mapping of the application commands to a particular group number (App.
Br. 9), Appellant does not provide any persuasive evidence or rationale to
distinguish Voigt's group number from the recited classification parameter,
or Voigt's including of the group numbers in the I/O commands from the
host or application. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's
argument.
Appellant further argues that Voigt discloses "a substitution or change
occurs at the storage device, not at the host device." App. Br. 10 (emphasis
omitted); see Reply Br. 6-7. We disagree with Appellant. As found by the
4
Appeal2014-000011
Application 12/851,558
Examiner, Voigt expressly discloses that the I/O commands are generated at
the initiator and are sent to the target, such as a storage device. Ans. 2-3
(citing Voigt i-fi-130-31). Appellant's argument is limited to an embodiment
that describes modifying application commands (Voigt i-fi-f 11-14), whereas
the Examiner has relied on an embodiment that generates an application
command at the initiator to be sent to the target. See Ans. 2-3 (citing Voigt
i-fi-1 30-31 ); see also Voigt i-f 16 ("hosts make I/O requests (example, read and
write requests) to storage devices"). Because Appellant's argument does not
rebut the findings made by the Examiner, we are not persuaded by
Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred.
Appellant also argues that Voigt "appears to teach away from
associating, with the first device, the classification value with the application
command ... by instead utilizing a particular priority field and/or the group
number field to modify priority of a I/O request once received at a storage
device (e.g., a second device)." App. Br. 10. We disagree with Appellant.
First, as discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellant that
Voigt fails to disclose assigning a group number at the first device.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Voigt
teaches away from such a feature because we do not agree with Appellant
that Voigt, in fact, does not disclose the feature.
Second, Appellant does not direct us to any evidence that Voigt
discourages or discredits the generation of an application command and
classification parameter at a first device. "A reference may be said to teach
away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." Ricoh
5
Appeal2014-000011
Application 12/851,558
Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Comp., Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(citations omitted). A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a
general preference for an alternative invention from amongst options
available to the ordinarily skilled artisan, and the reference does not discredit
or discourage investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391
F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Absent any evidence that Voigt
discourages or discredits the generation of an application command and
classification parameter at a first device, we are not persuaded by Appellant
that Voigt teaches away from such a feature.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 US. C. § 103 (a) as obvious over Voigt and
Powell
Appellant contends that dependent claim 11 depends from
independent claim 10, and does not separately argue dependent claim 11.
App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 7. We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive
for independent claim 10 for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claim 11 for the same reasons discussed above with
respect to independent claim 10.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-15.
DECISION
To summarize, the rejection of claims 1-15 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
6