Ex Parte Sangapu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 1, 201311523452 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation