Ex Parte Ahluwalia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2014

11223559 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/223,559 09/09/2005 Vikas Ahluwalia BEA9-2005-0022-US1 9861
73445 7590 07/24/2014
Lieberman & Brandsdorfer, LLC
802 Still Creek Lane
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
EXAMINER
ALSIP, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2186
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte VIKAS AHLUWALIA, VIPUL PAUL, and
SCOTT A. PIPER1
________________

Appeal 2012-003663
Application 11/223,559
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The Real Party-in-Interest is International Business Machines Corporation.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2012-003663
Application 11/223,559

2
SUMMARY

Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-6, and 19-25 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of the
Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) and Guha et al. (US
2004/0054939 A1, March 18, 2004) (“Guha”) and Gubbi (US 2003/0219030
A1, November 27, 2003) (“Gubbi”).2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for managing a
spin state of individual physical disks in a distributed file system. Spin
control messages are forwarded to a specified physical disk asynchronously
with an I/O command and prior to receipt of the data request by the physical
disk. This enables the spin state of the physical disk to be responsive to the
I/O command with minimal delay. Abstract.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Appellants group claims 1-6 and 19 together. App. Br. 3. We
therefore select independent claim 1 as representative of this group. Claim 1
recites:
1. A method for managing power in a distributed file
system, comprising:

2 Claims 7-18 are canceled. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2012-003663
Application 11/223,559

3

the distributed file system having at least one server in
communication with at least one remote client across a network
connection, and a storage media in remote communication with
the at least one client and the at least one server;

supporting simultaneous and direct access to the storage
media by at least two client machines in the system;

tracking operating speed of at least two disks in the
storage media, including organizing a spin state of individual
physical disks in an activity table;

asynchronously controlling the spin state of a physical
disk in said storage media in response to a metadata request
including:

a manager sending a command to at least one physical
disk in the storage media with spin state data to process an I/O
command;

spinning the physical disk up to a state in which it can
process the I/O command in response to one of the client
machines requesting metadata associated with said I/O
command from the server and prior to said client machine
directly accessing said physical disk; and

the client machine issuing said I/O command based on
metadata received from the server directly to said physical disk
spinning in the processing state.

App. Br. 13.
Appellants group claims 20-25 together. App Br. 4. We therefore
select independent claim 20 as representative of this group. Claim 20
recites:
20. A method for managing power in a distributed file
system, comprising:
Appeal 2012-003663
Application 11/223,559

4

the distributed file system having at least one server in
communication with at least one remote client across a network
connection, and a storage media in remote communication with
the at least one client and at least one server;

supporting direct and simultaneous access to shared
storage in the storage area network by multiple client machines;

tracking operating speed of individual disks in the shared
storage, including organizing a spin state of the individual disks
in an activity table, wherein the activity table is stored in
memory of the server in communication with the shared
storage; and

asynchronously controlling the spin state of a physical
disk in said storage media in response to a metadata request
including:

one of the client machines requesting metadata from the
server prior to said client machine directly accessing the
physical disk, including consulting the activity table to
determine the spin state of the physical disks;

a manager, local to the server, sending a command to at
least one physical disk with spin state data to process an I/O
command;
spinning said disk to a processing speed in response to
receipt of said command, and prior to receipt of said I/O
command corresponding to said requested metadata by said
disk; and

the client machine issuing said I/O command based on
metadata received from the server directly to said physical disk
spinning in to the processing state.

App. Br. 14.

Appeal 2012-003663
Application 11/223,559

5
ISSUES AND ANALYSES
A. Claim 1
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding the combined
prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 1 reciting
“spinning the physical disk up to a state in which it can process the I/O
command in response to one of the client machines requesting metadata
associated with said I/O command from the server and prior to said client
machine directly accessing said physical disk.” See App. Br. 8.

Analysis
Appellants’ claim recites a client machine sending a metadata request
to the server. App. Br. 7. In response to the metadata request, the server
sends a command to spin up the disk associated with the data that the
acquired to which the metadata refers. Id. After the spin up command is
sent to the disk, and the client is sent the metadata, the client machine
accesses the disk to complete the I/O command. Id. Consequently, the time
interval between issuance of the spin up command and disk access is
mitigated by having the server issue the spin up request to the drive storing
the file at the same time the server receives the metadata request from the
client. App. Br. 8.
Appellants argue that the disputed limitation of claim 1 “pertain[s] to
spinning a physical disk up to a state in which it can process an I/O
command in response to one of the client machines requesting metadata
associated with the I/O command from a server and prior to the client
machine directly accessing the physical disk.” App. Br. 6. Appellants
Appeal 2012-003663
Application 11/223,559

6
contend that, in a situation in which the disks are initially powered up and
spinning, Guha teaches spinning a physical disk up prior to the client
machine directly accessing the physical disk. Id. However, contend
Appellants, Guha does not teach spinning a physical disk up in response to
one of the client machines requesting metadata from the server. Id.
On the other hand, argue Appellants, in a situation in which the disks
are not initially powered up, Guha teaches individually controlling the power
to each of the disks so that it can power up the subset of disks that are
currently being accessed and powering down the subset of disks that are not
currently being accessed. App. Br. 6 (citing Guha, ¶ [0050]). According to
Appellants, the aspect of powering up a subset of disks in Guha takes place
when the disk is currently being accessed. Id. However, argue Appellants,
this aspect does not read on spinning a disk up prior to the client machine
directly accessing the physical disk. Id. Appellants therefore contend that
Guha neither expressly nor inherently teaches spinning up a disk prior to the
client directly accessing the disk to support a read or write transaction. Id.
Appellants maintain that the Examiner has erroneously split the claim
limitations into two portions: (1) spinning the disk in response to a client
metadata request; and (2) spinning the disk prior to sending an I/O request to
that disk. App. Br. 7. According to Appellants, in the former portion the
disk referred to by metadata is initially powered up, whereas in the second
portion, the disk referred to by metadata is initially powered down. Id.
Appellants maintain that in so splitting the claim, the Examiner failed
to address the limitation as a whole; specifically, the splitting of the clause
fails to address the nuance of the time differential between a metadata
request and disk access by the client. Id.
Appeal 2012-003663
Application 11/223,559

7
With respect to portion (1) supra, Appellants contend that the disk
referred to by the metadata is initially powered up, whereas in (2) the disk
referred to by metadata is initially powered down. App. Br. 7. Appellants
argue that Guha, in contrast, teaches a disk in an idle (not spinning) state for
the first portion of the limitation, and a disk in a spinning state for the
second portion of the above limitation. Id. However argue Appellants, in
the split portions set forth by the Examiner, the disk is both idle and active at
the same time. Id. Accordingly, argue Appellants, the prior art of Guha, as
applied by the Examiner, does not teach spinning a physical disk up to a
state in which it can process an I/O command in response to one of the client
machines requesting metadata associated with the I/O command from the
server and prior to the client machine directly accessing the physical disk.
Id.
The Examiner responds that Guha is not being used to teach the
specific structure of, and communication between, the various components.
Ans. 17. The Examiner finds that the AAPA is being used as the primary
reference for its general structure and communication between the various
components, whereas Guha is being employed as teaching the use of
powering disks down and up to save power and space, and the use of
associated metadata to improve upon the AAPA. Id.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that the AAPA discloses the client
sending a metadata request to a server/manager and in turn the
server/manager retrieving metadata for the client, such as the requested
data’s attributes, locations, and locking privileges. Ans. 17-18 (citing
AAPA, pp. 1-3, ll. 21-6; Fig. 1). The Examiner finds that the AAPA teaches
that after this metadata is sent to the client, the client can then directly access
Appeal 2012-003663
Application 11/223,559

8
the data. Id. Moreover, the Examiner finds that Figure 1 of the AAPA
explicitly depicts the communication pathways between each device. Ans.
18. However, finds the Examiner, the AAPA does not disclose disk spin
state information or processes. Id.
The Examiner adduces Guha to describe the use of disk spin state
information and the powering up and down of drives to save power. Ans. 18
(citing Guha, ¶¶ 27; 65; 104; 114; 115; 121; 128-131). The Examiner finds
that Guha teaches that, when a request
is sent for information that is on a disk in the powered down state, the
metadata section of the storage system receives this command and
determines the appropriate metadata and steps needed to service the request,
such as spinning up the appropriate disk. Id. The disk is then instructed to
power up so that the disk will reach a readable/writable spin state to
complete the transaction. Id.
The Examiner finds, therefore, that the combination of references
describe a data storage device, a metadata server, and a client, wherein the
client accesses the metadata server to acquire the needed metadata to access
the disk, including disk spin state information and if the requested disk is not
in a readable state the disk is spun up to a readable state. Ans. 18. The
Examiner also finds that the metadata information is returned back to the
client indicating that the client can access the storage disk and the client then
directly accesses the disk. App. Br. 18-19.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that the AAPA teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 1
with the exception of the server powering disks up or down to save power
Appeal 2012-003663
Application 11/223,559

9
and space, and the use of associated metadata to improve upon the AAPA,
which the Examiner finds is taught or suggested by Guha.
With respect to Guha, Appellants admit that “Guha teaches spinning a
physical disk up prior to the client machine directly accessing the physical
disk” but argues that Guha “does not teach spinning a physical disk up in
response to one of the client machines requesting metadata from the server.”
See App. Br. 6 (emphasis in original). Nevertheless, the AAPA teaches the
client sending a request for metadata to the server, and the server sending a
response with metadata to the client, which permits the client to directly
access the SAN disks. See Spec., p. 2, ll. 6-16. We agree with the
Examinerthat for the server to decide which disks to spin up, it must do so in
response to a specific request for metadata from the client, as indeed the
AAPA teaches. See Ans. 9. Because Appellants admit that “Guha teaches
spinning a physical disk up prior to the client machine directly accessing the
physical disk,” we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the instructions to spin up
a particular disk prior to the client machine directly accessing the disk, as
taught by Guha, would arrive from the server in response to the metadata
request from the client. Id. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1.

B. Claim 20
Issue
Appellants next argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited
prior art references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 20 reciting “a
manager, local to the server, sending a command to at least one physical disk
Appeal 2012-003663
Application 11/223,559

10
with spin state data to process an I/O command.” App. Br. 9-10.

Analysis
Appellants argue, as noted above, that Guha teaches a RAID
(redundant array of independent disks) controller that controls spinning up
of an idle disk in response to an I/O request for this disk. App. Br. 10.
According to Appellants, Guha does not teach a server element separate
from data storage and client machines. Id. Appellants contend that the
controller of Guha responsible for spinning an idle disk up is local to and a
part of the data storage. Appellants admit that although the AAPA teaches a
server separate from the data storage and clients, Appellants argue that the
AAPA does not teach the hardware elements of the manager local to the
server or the server supporting functionality for sending a command to at
least one disk with spin state data to process an I/O command. Id.
The Examiner responds that the test for obviousness is not whether
the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must
be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Ans. 23. Rather,
explains the Examiner, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
We agree with the Examiner. Although, Guha teaches a RAID
controller, the AAPA explicitly teaches that the servers are separate from,
and connected to, the disks in the SAN. Moreover, as we have related
supra, Guha teaches “spinning a physical disk up prior to the client machine
directly accessing the physical disk” and that the AAPA teaches that these
Appeal 2012-003663
Application 11/223,559

11
instructions come from the server. Claim 20 requires “a manager, local to
the server, sending a command to at least one physical disk with spin state
data to process an I/O command” and because we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that the instructions to spin up the disks in response to the client’s
request for metadata originate in the server, we agree with the Examiner’s
conclusionthat the disputed limitation is taught or suggested by the prior art
of record. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s non-final rejection.

DECISION
The Examiner’s non-final rejection of claims 1-6, 19-25 as obvious
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cdc