Ex Parte Balasubramanian et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 7, 2016

12474280 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/474,280 0512912009
112792 7590 10/12/2016
Haynes and Boone, LLP (47415)
Attn: IPDocketing
2323 Victory A venue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
SRIDHAR BALASUBRAMANIAN
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.
POl-7001 I 47415.246 1240
EXAMINER
BRYAN, JASON B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2114
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2016 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):
ipdocketing@haynesboone.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SRIDHAR BALASUBRAMANIAN,
KENNETH FUGATE, and RUSSELL J. HENRY
Appeal2014-007064
Application 12/474,280
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHN F. HORVATH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-17, and 19-24, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-007064
Application 12/474,280
SU~vHvfARY OF THE Il-JVENTION
The invention is directed to a policy-based backup and recovery
operation in a storage network. Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for performing a backup and restore operation
in a storage network, comprising:
detecting an application entity in the storage network,
wherein the storage network comprises at least one host server
running an application and at least one storage array including
the application entity, where the application entity comprises a
storage share or volume;
configuring a backup and restore policy associated with
the storage network for the application entity; and
performing a backup operation of data associated with the
application entity based on the backup and restore policy using a
system server that is in communication with, and separate from,
the storage network and operable to interface with the application
and the application entity.
Fujibayashi
Michelman
Havemose
Anand
Okada
Backensto
REFERENCES
US 2004/0181707 Al
US 2004/0260973 A 1
US 2007 /0260733 Al
US 2007/0283017 Al
US 2008/0071841 A 1
US 8,281,317 Bl
2
Sept. 16, 2004
Dec. 23, 2004
Nov. 8, 2007
Dec. 6, 2007
Mar. 20, 2008
Oct. 2, 2012
Appeal2014-007064
Application 12/474,280
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 13-17, and 19-21, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Anand, Fujibayashi, and Havemose. Final
Act. 2.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Anand, Fujibayashi, Havemose, and Michelman. Final Act. 14.
Claims 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Anand, Fujibayashi, Havemose, Michelman, and Okada.
Final Act. 14, 1 7.
Claims 8, 9, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Anand, Fujibayashi, Havemose, and Okada. Final Act.
15-16.
Claims 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Anand, Fujibayashi, Havemose, and Backensto. Final Act. 18.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions, and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
Claims 1, 3-17, 19-21, and 23
Issue 1: Whether the combination of Anand, Fujibayashi, and
Havemose teaches or suggests a system server, separate from a
3
Appeal2014-007064
Application 12/474,280
storage network, and operable to interface with an application
on the storage network
The Examiner finds this limitation is taught or suggested by
Havemose, which discloses program coordinator 108 (executing on
coordinator node 110) initiates checkpoint and restore operations on
program 94 (executing on node 96). Final Act. 4 (citing Havemose, i-fi-120,
82-84, 94, Fig. 4). Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because Havemose' s coordinator 108, which sends checkpoint messages to
TCL 102 (a node-level application executing on node 96), is not interfaced
with program 94. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.
"[D]uring examination ... claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Hyatt, 211F.3d1367,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Specification does not define the term
"interface," or explain what it means for a server to "interface" with an
application on a storage network. According to the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), to "interface" means to "connect two or
more components for the purpose of passing information from one to the
other." See The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms, 574 (7th
ed. 2000). Consequently, giving the term "interface" its broadest reasonable
interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that by teaching that coordinator
108 (executing on node 110) sends checkpoint messages to and receives
checkpoint messages from program 94 (executing on node 96), albeit
indirectly, Havemose, teaches or suggests a system server (node 110)
operable to interfac with an application (program 94) on a storage network
(node 96) as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 2.
4
Appeal2014-007064
Application 12/474,280
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellants argue claims 3-21 and 23 are patentable for the same reason as
claim 1. App. Br. 9-11. We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejections of
these claims for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 22 and 24
Issues 2 & 3: Whether the combination of Anand, Fujibayashi,
Havemose, and Backensto teaches or suggests a system server
communicating with an application on the storage network
"using application-specific commands, " as recited in claim 22,
or "directly," as recited in claim 24.
The Examiner finds the limitations recited in claims 22 and 24 are
taught or suggested by Backensto' s disclosure of a coordinator thread that
triggers application threads to checkpoint by directly signaling/sending
checkpoint messages to the application threads. Final Act. 18-20 (citing
Backensto §§ 3a-3b ); Ans. 3--4.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 22 and 24
because Havemose' s coordinator 108 sends checkpoint commands to node-
level TLC function rather than to program 94, and therefore does not send
application-specific commands (claim 22) or directly send commands (claim
24) to program 94, and because "it would make no sense to modify the
combination of references to send application specific commands to the
node-level functions noted above" or to "create direct communication in the
cited portions of Havemose." App. Br. 11-12. Appellants next argue the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 22 and 24 because Backensto's inter-
thread communications are between processes running on a single node,
5
Appeal2014-007064
Application 12/474,280
rather than between processes nmning on different nodes (e.g., nodes 96/110
of Havemose or the system server/storage nodes recited in claims 22 and
24). Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments.
As to Appellants' first argument, we note that the rejection is based on
the combined teachings of Anand, Fujibayashi, Havemose, and Backensto.
See Final Act. 3--4, 18-19. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that:
1. Anand teaches a backup server 110 that is interfaced with a
production server 105, and stores data generated on the
production server according to a production intent 123 (e.g., a
backup and restore policy), Final Act. 3--4; Anand, Fig. IA;
2. Havemose teaches a coordinator application 108 executing on a
server/node 110 that interfaces and indirectly communicates
with a program application 94 executing on a server/node 96 to
store data generated by application 94, Final Act. 4; Havemose,
Fig. 4; and
3. Backensto teaches a coordinator application that communicates
directly with one or more application programs to store the
application data, Final Act. 18-19; Backensto 12:45-14:7.
Appellants' first argument---offered without explanation or evidence-that
the Examiner's proposed combination makes "no sense," is little more than
attorney argument. App. Br. 11-12. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error. See Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed.
Cir. 1989) ("Attorney's argument is no substitute for evidence.").
Appellants' second argument is raised for the first time in the Reply,
and Appellants make no showing of good cause why it could not have been
raised in the Appeal. See Reply Br. 4. Accordingly, it is waived. See 37
C.F .R. § 41.41 (b )(2). Moreover, even if we were to consider Appellants'
untimely argument, we would not be persuaded of Examiner error because
Backensto explicitly teaches that the description in which the coordinator
6
Appeal2014-007064
Application 12/474,280
and the applications to be checkpointed are nmning on the same node is
made for the sake of simplicity only, and that "this is not a requirement as
the coordinator can run on any node." Backensto 3:26-34 (emphasis
added).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claim 22 and 24.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 11, 13-17, and 19-21under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Anand, Fujibayashi, and Havemose is
affirmed.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Anand, Fujibayashi, Havemose, and Michelman is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Anand, Fujibayashi, Havemose, Michelman, and Okada is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 8, 9, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Anand, Fujibayashi, Havemose, and Okada is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Anand, Fujibayashi, Havemose, and Backensto 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
7