Ex Parte Assarpour

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2017

13077610 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/077,610 03/31/2011 Hamid Assarpour 411116-US-NP/AVA236PA 5871
136582 7590 06/14/2017
STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP
Box AVAYA Inc.
7019 Corporate Way
Dayton, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
SNYDER, STEVEN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2017 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):
pto @ sspatlaw. com
pair_avaya@ firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAMID ASSARPOUR
Appeal 2017-003984
Application 13/077,610
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BETH Z. SHAW, and KAMRAN JIVANI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17—20,
and 23—27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Avaya Technology
LLC. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-003984
Application 13/077,610
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification presents a scalable storage virtualization whereby
management functions are provided in a first device, input/output (“I/O”)
functions are provided in a second device, and the first device manages the
I/O functions of the second device via an interface between the devices.
Abst.
Independent claim 1 is representative and reproduced below, with
bracketed material added and disputed limitation emphasized.
1. A computer-implemented method in which a computer
system performs operations providing scalable storage
virtualization comprising:
providing storage virtualization management functions in at least
one first device wherein storage virtualization management
functions include maintaining and distributing metadata tables;
providing storage virtualization Input/Output (I/O) functions in
at least one second device, wherein at least two of said first
devices are used with any number of second devices to provide
increased performance and resiliency;
providing an interface between said at least one first device and
said at least one second device, [LI] wherein said interface
communicates using a separate dedicated communication bus,
said separate dedicated communication bus only used by said
first device and said second device, and wherein said at least one
first device manages and updates I/O functions of said at least
one second device;
performing I/O operations between said at least one second
device and at least one storage device; and
wherein said at least one storage device is only in direct
communication with said at least one second device and wherein
2
Appeal 2017-003984
Application 13/077,610
said first device is isolated from direct communication with said
at least one storage device.
The Rejections
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 17—19, and 23—27 stand rejected, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Popovski (US 2010/0274969 Al;
Oct. 28, 2010) and Nahum (US 2003/0236945 Al; Dec. 25, 2003).
Claims 5, 11, and 20 stand rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
obvious over Popovski, Nahum, and Huang (US 2010/0235833 Al;
Sept. 16, 2010).
Claim 15 stands rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over
Popovski, Nahum, and Daniels (US 2006/0106893 Al; May 18, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal on the basis of
representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in citing the Fibre Channel bus
connection between Popovski’s first storage manager 133 and storage
virtualization manager 230 as suggesting claim 1 ’s disputed “separate
dedicated communication bus” limitation (see supra). Br. 8—9. Appellant
particularly contends: “The Examiner [improperly] make[s] a generalization
that since no other devices are shown in the Figure to be connected to this
bus, it reads on the claim element.” Id. Appellant further contends an
artisan of ordinary skill would not make the alleged generalization because:
As is known by a person of reasonable skill in the art Fibre
Channel utilizes nodes and links. Further, each Fibre Channel
node is typically cabled through a hub or switch. This is different
than the claimed separate dedicated communication bus, as a bus
3
Appeal 2017-003984
Application 13/077,610
does not require nodes or links, but simple point-to-point
connections between devices.
Id. at 9. Appellant adds that the Examiner improperly relied upon a
Wikipedia article in support of the alleged generalization. Id. at 10.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments and find them
unpersuasive for at least the following reasons.
First, Appellant’s arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s
findings. The Examiner does not find Popovski’s cited Fibre Channel bus
connection constitutes a “separate dedicated communication bus,” but rather
finds a “Fibre Channel point-to-point connection” was known and is
suggested by Popovski illustrating a separate Fibre Channel link between the
first storage manager 133 and the storage virtualization manager 230.
Ans. 25. Further, the Examiner does not rely on the Wikipedia article, but
rather cites several prior art publications—as replacements for the Wikipedia
article—to support the finding that Fibre Channel point-to-point connections
were known. Id. at 25—26; Adv. Act. (July 9, 2015). Appellant’s arguments
do not rebut these applied findings or support, in part because Appellant
does not reply to the Answer and in part because Appellant does not address
the Examiner’s Advisory Action citations.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 17—19, and 23—27 over Popovski and
Nahum.
Appellant advances no further arguments on remaining claims 5, 11,
15, and 20. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of: claims 5,
11, and 20 over Popovski, Nahum, and Huang; and claim 15 over Popovski,
Nahum, and Daniels.
4
Appeal 2017-003984
Application 13/077,610
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11,
13, 14, 17-20, and 23-27.
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
5