Ex Parte Sangapu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 1, 2013

11523452 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SATISH SANGAPU, KEVIN KIDNEY,
KURT DENTON, and DIANNA BUTTER

___________

Appeal 2010-010536
Application 11/523,452
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010536
Application 11/523,452

2
This is an appeal
1
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 10, 18, and 26
2
. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive
Disks (RAID) storage systems and optimizing the reconstruction of the
contents of a component drive in a RAID system following its
failure. (Spec. [0001].)

Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 10 is representative of the invention, and is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
10. A method for reconstructing the contents of a failed disk
in an n-disk redundant array of inexpensive disks (RAID), the
method comprising:

detecting a failed disk of an n-disk RAID;

receiving one or more input/output (IO) requests addressed
to one or more a logical volume pieces of the failed disk;

reconstructing one or more logical volume pieces of the
failed disk to a global hot spare in response to the one or
more IO requests addressed to the one or more logical
volume pieces of the failed disk;

1
The Real Party-In-Interest is LSI Logic Corporation.
2
Claims 1-9, 11-17, 19-25, and 27-29 were previously cancelled, and are not
before the Board on appeal.
Appeal 2010-010536
Application 11/523,452

3
detecting a replacement of the failed disk, the detection of
the replacement disk occurring during the reconstruction of
the one or more logical volume pieces of the failed disk to
the global hot spare;

reconstructing one or more logical volume pieces of the
failed disk to the replacement disk; and

copying one or more reconstructed logical volume pieces
from the global hot spare to the replacement disk.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 10, 18, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over US 5,941,994 to DeKoning et al. (hereinafter
“DeKoning”) in view of US 2005/0283654 to Wood et al. (hereinafter
“Wood”) and US 2004/0250017 to Patterson et al. (hereinafter “Patterson”).
(Ans. 3.)

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. (App. Br. 14-17.) We are
unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
Appellants contend that the requirement in claim 10 for “[d]etecting a
replacement of the failed disk, the detection of the replacement disk
occurring during the reconstruction of the one or more logical volume pieces
of the failed disk to the global hot spare ....” is not met by the prior art relied
on by the Examiner. (App. Br. 8.) Specifically, Appellants contend that
Patterson does not teach “detecting a replacement of the failed disk,” but
instead Patterson detects the addition of a new disk to the storage
system. (App. Br. 10.) However, this contention is contrary to the
Appeal 2010-010536
Application 11/523,452

4
Examiner’s finding that Patterson discloses the detection of a replacement
for a failed disk, because Patterson at paragraph 49 states “[i]f a new disk is
detected, the procedure terminates the migrating rebuild process (block 906)
and initiates a rebuild in place process using the new disk (block
908).” From this disclosure, the Examiner concludes “it should be clear that
the new disk is a) detected and b) used as a replacement for the disk that
failed (i.e., the disk that’s being rebuilt).” (Ans. 6.) We determine that the
record more than adequately supports the Examiner’s finding.
Appellants further contend that the Examiner’s findings fail to provide
an interpretation of Patterson and the claims that “bridges the gap” between
the actual recitation of Patterson and the Appellants’ claims, and that there
are “significant textual distinctions” between the actual recitation of
Patterson and the claims. (App. Br. 10) However, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that “although the words are not textually identical, the
concepts are indistinct.” (Ans. 7.)
Anticipation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N.V. v. United States Int’l Trade
Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “An anticipatory
reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in the
claims.” Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369
(Fed. Cir. 1991). Obviousness is not an ipsissimis verbis (in identical
words) test, either, because the language in the claims at issue need not be
textually identical to that in the reference, as it is the substance of what is
disclosed by the reference that needs to be compared to the claims.
Consequently, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ ipsissimis verbis
arguments. (App. Br. 10-13.) Even though the Patterson reference does not
Appeal 2010-010536
Application 11/523,452

5
use the same words as the claims, the concept of detecting a new disk to be
used for the rebuilding data is indistinct from the concept of detecting a
replacement disk for a disk that has failed where the data must be rebuilt
onto the replacement (i.e., new) disk. We, therefore, conclude that
Appellants’ arguments are unavailing, because they ignore the teachings of
the Patterson reference. We find that there is more than adequate record to
support the Examiner’s findings regarding Patterson’s teachings in relation
to the claims.
Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in combining
DeKoning and Wood with Patterson. (App. Br. 13.) According to
Appellants, the express recitations of DeKoning and Wood teach away from
making this combination, because Wood must perform reconstruction using
conventional partial reconstruction when a disk has catastrophically failed,
rather than using partial copy reconstruction when a disk is non-
catastrophically failed as in DeKoning. (App. Br. 13-16.)
The Examiner explains that Appellants misapprehend the substance of
the combination of DeKoning and Wood. (Ans. 7.) The Examiner relies
upon DeKoning for every element of claim 10, except (i), which calls for
receiving one or more I/O requests addressed to a logical volume piece of
the failed disk, and (ii), which recites detecting a replacement of the failed
disk. (Ans. 4-5.) For the first of these elements the Examiner relies on
Wood. (Ans. 4.) For the second, the Examiner relies on Patterson.
3
(Ans.
5.) The Examiner cites Wood as teaching a reconstruction process known in
the art, where “the process is invoked when an unrecoverable read error

3
As discussed above, the Examiner cites to Patterson for teaching the
detection of a replacement for the failed disk. (Ans. 5.)
Appeal 2010-010536
Application 11/523,452

6
occurs during normal I/O operations in the storage system. The process
begins in step 200 and proceeds to step 202 [see Fig. 2A] where the
controller 326 [Fig. 3] makes a determination whether the error is
noncatastrophic and bounded.” (Ans. 8, citing Wood, paragraph 27.) The
Examiner reasons that combining DeKoning and Wood demonstrates that
reconstruction in response to access failure is a known process available in
the art. (Id.) Further, the Examiner finds that a person having ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to
reconstruct only a failed disk because, as taught in Wood, it decreases
reconstruction time. (Id.) In addition, the Examiner finds nothing in
DeKoning and Wood that teaches away from combining their teachings.
Appellants lastly contend that Examiner erred in combining
DeKoning and Wood, because there is no overlapping feature in the
references. (App. Br. 17). The Examiner finds that DeKoning and Wood
both relate to reconstructing data from a failed disk, thus are in the same
field of endeavor, and as such, have overlapping features. (Ans. 8-9.)
Therefore, we conclude that the combination of DeKoning and Wood with
Patterson is proper. We agree with the Examiner’s analysis and conclusion
of obviousness, which is more than adequately supported by the record.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 10.
Appellants have not presented any substantially different arguments
for claims 18 and 26, which require the same or similar disputed claim
limitations as representative claim 10. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection
of claims 18 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2010-010536
Application 11/523,452

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10, 18, and 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc