Ex Parte Bartlett et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 17, 2016

13251037 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/251,037 09/30/2011
50548 7590
ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- IBM
1155 N. 1st St.
Suite 105
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
08/19/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eric J. Bartlett
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.
IBM1P220/GB920100057US1 5565
EXAMINER
LEIBOVICH, YAIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2114
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2016 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):
zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte ERIC J. BARTLETT, MATTHEW J. FAIRHURST, and
WILLIAM J. SCALES
Appeal2015-002677
Application 13/251,03 7
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1--4, 6, 14--17, and 19. 1 Claims 5, 7, 18, and 20-22 have been
objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but otherwise
containing allowable subject matter. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Claim 15 appears to include a typographical error, as claim 15 depends
upon itself. See Appeal Br. 32. We treat the claim as depending upon claim
14, rather than claim 15.
Appeal2015-002677
Application 13/251,037
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A system for managing storage devices,
compnsmg:
a storage subsystem comprising an array of storage
devices:
a receiving component configured to receive an
error message;
a determining component configured to
determine that the error message indicates that at least
one storage device in the array of storage devices has
failed;
a collecting component configured to collect an
array record comprising storage device characteristics
of the failed storage device in response to determining
that the error message indicates that the at least one
storage device has failed;
a collating component configured to collate a
candidate record comprising a plurality of candidate
entries, wherein each candidate entry comprises storage
device characteristics for one of a plurality of candidate
storage devices;
a comparing component configured to compare
storage device characteristics of the failed storage
device of the array record with the storage device
characteristics of each of the candidate entries: and
an identifying component configured to:
identify a first candidate storage device having
storage device characteristics that match the storage
device characteristics of the failed storage device in
response to the comparing component identifying a
candidate entry that matches the storage device of the
array record; and
identify a second candidate storage device having
storage device characteristics most similar to the
2
Appeal2015-002677
Application 13/251,037
storage device characteristics of the foiled storage
device in response to the comparing component not
identifying a candidate entry that matches the failed
storage device of the array record.
Rejection on Appeal2
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 6, 14--17, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cassell (US 2005/0114593 Al;
publ. May 26, 2005). 3
Appellants ' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
Claim 1 requires "a determining component configured to
determine that the error message indicates that at least one
storage device in the array of storage devices has failed."
The rejection relies on Cassell 0004 [and 0007] in addition
to Cassell Abstract and figure 1 to allegedly teach such
limitation. FOA at 9. However, a review of [the aforementioned
portions of Cassell] failed to reveal any disclosure of a
2 The Examiner rejected claims 14--20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter, and also provisionally rejected
claims 1-3, 5-7, 14--16, and 18-22 on the ground of obviousness-type
double patenting, but withdrew both rejections in the Advisory Action dated
June 12, 2014. Final Act. 6-8; Adv. Act. Therefore, these rejections are not
before us.
3 Ostensibly, Appellants separately argue patentability for claim 14.
However, Appellants' arguments for claim 14 are virtually identical to its
arguments for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 17-27. Thus, the patentability of
claim 14 is not separately argued from that of claim 1. Further, separate
patentability is not argued for claims 2--4, 6, 15-17, and 19. See Appeal
Br. 6 and 17. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 2--4, 6, 14--17, and 19
are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2015-002677
Application 13/251,037
component which determines that an error message indicates
that at least one storage device in the array of storage devices
has failed. In fact, [the aforementioned portions of Cassell are]
devoid of any mention of an error message at all.
Nor is there any evidence on the record to support the
contention that the foregoing claim limitation is "a
fundamental feature included in all RAID systems."
Appeal Br. 7-8, emphasis added.
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
Claim 1 also requires "a collecting component configured
to collect an array record comprising storage device
characteristics of the failed storage device in response to
determining that the error message indicates that the at least one
storage device has failed."
The rejection refers to Cassell paragraphs 0066, 0075 and
0077 in an attempt to sho\x; the foregoing limitation. HoJA.Jei1er, a
review of Cassell 0066 failed to reveal disclosure of any
component which "collect[s] an array record comprising
storage device characteristics of the failed storage device" as
required. In fact, Cassell 0066 is devoid of reference to
collecting any characteristics at all. It is unclear how this
section of Cassell even pertains to the limitation currently being
examined ....
Moreover, looking to Cassell paragraphs 0075 and 0077,
the cited sections fail to include "collect[ing] an army record
comprising storage device characteristics of the failed storage
device." ([E]mphasis added)[.] Nor do the foregoing sections of
Cassell perform any collections in response to any
determination that a storage device has failed . ...
Furthermore, none of the sections of Cassell relied upon
in the rejection teach doing anything "in response to
4
Appeal2015-002677
Application 13/251,037
determining that the error message indicates that the at least
one storage device has failed," much less "collect[ing] an array
record comprising storage device characteristics of the failed
d . " storage ev1ce. . ..
. . . . Moreover, attempts to assert that certain elements of claim
1 "always occur in RAID systems" or that they are "included
by definition" do not save the rejection . ...
Appeal Br. 9--10, emphasis added.
3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
Claim 1 also requires "a comparing component configured
to compare storage device characteristics of the failed storage
device of the array record with the storage device characteristics
of each of the candidate entries."
.... Appellant respectfully asserts that Cassell does not
consider storage device characteristics of a failed storage
device. Rather, Cassell looks to characteristics of the remaining
functional drives to find a replacement.
Appeal Br. 11, emphasis added.
4. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
Claim 1 additionally requires "an identifying component
configured to: identify a first candidate storage device having
storage device characteristics that match the storage device
characteristics of the failed storage device in response to the
comparing component identifying a candidate entry that matches
the storage device of the array record."
[T]he rejection itself has failed to suggest that any
identification is made in Cassell 0077, much less "identify a
first candidate storage device ... in response to the comparing
component identifying a candidate entry that matches the
5
Appeal2015-002677
Application 13/251,037
storage device of the array record." (/Ejmphasis added)/.}
Further still, nowhere does Cassell even hint at comparing
anything to characteristics of a failed storage device. It follows
that the Examiner has failed to even allege that Cassell
performs any identification in response to an identification
being made by a comparing component . ...
Appeal Br. 13, emphasis added.
5. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
Furthermore, claim 1 requires "an identifying component
configured to: ... identify a second candidate storage device
having storage device characteristics most similar to the storage
device characteristics of the failed storage device in response to
the comparing component not identifying a candidate entry that
matches the failed storage device of the array record."
The rejection refers yet again to Cassell 0077. FOA at 11.
However, the rejection has failed to suggest that any
identification is made in Cassell 0077, much less "identify a
second candidate storage device ... in response to the
comparing component not identifying a candidate entry that
matches the failed storage device of the array record."
([E]mphasis added)[.] Furthermore, nowhere does Cassell
even hint at comparing anything to characteristics of a failed
storage device. It follows that the Examiner has failed to even
allege that Cassell per/ orms any identification in response to a
comparing component not making an identification.
Appeal Br. 14--15, emphasis added.
6. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
Appellant also respectfully submits that the rejection of
claim 1 improperly attempts to combine features from diverse
embodiments of Cassell. Specifically, the rejection relies on
Cassell paragraphs 0004, 0065, 0066, 0073, 0075 and 0077 in
addition to Cassell figure 1 and "other locations". However,
6
Appeal2015-002677
Application 13/251,037
paragraph 0004 is included in Cassell Background section and
describes several broad background examples which are distinct
from those embodiments described in Cassell 0065, 0066, 0073,
0075 and 0077.
Additionally, looking to Cassell 0065 and 0066, the
description therein includes three distinct embodiments:
operator-initiated requests, demand-driven requests and the
DISK.ADD selection process, which are alternatives of each
other. Again this reliance on distinct embodiments in an
attempt to meet the claimed limitations is improper[.]
Furthermore, relying on "other locations" in Cassell
further exacerbates this improper mixing and matching of
features from distinct embodiments in an attempt to meet the
limitations of the claim.
Appeal Br. 16, emphasis added.
7. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 1, Appellants also
contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
Appellant again respectfully notes the absence of any
mention of any type of "message" much less specifically an
"error message." Appellant respectfully submits that, while it
would be reasonable to conclude from Cassell's disclosures that
fundamental features of RAID systems include "stripes," "XOR
logic" "parity blocks," "data blocks," etc., these suggestions do
not reasonably permit the conclusion that all, much less
Cass ell's RAID system necessarily include "messages," less
still specifically an "error message" that "indicates that at least
one storage device in the array of storage devices has failed" as
required by claim 1 . ...
Reply Br. 5, emphasis added.
8. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 2, Appellants also
contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
7
Appeal2015-002677
Application 13/251,037
Upon further consideration of the cited portions and the
Examiner's explanations, Appellant withdraws the position that
Cassell fails to teach characteristics, but maintains the position
that Cassell fails to teach characteristics are included in an
array record . ...
Appellant furthermore respectfully submits that, since
Cassell fails to disclose any array record comprising storage
device characteristics, Cassell also fails to disclose a collecting
component configured to collect such an array record. Simply
put, absent disclosure of the data to be collected, no component
(even a collecting component) could be reasonably construed
as "configured to collect" the absent data.
As noted above, Appellant's position includes the notion
that Cassell fails to disclosed the claimed "error message
indicates at least one storage device has failed." Appellant also
therefore respectfully submits that Cassell fails to disclose
specifically collecting the array record "in response to
determining the error message indicates at least one storage
device has/ailed" as further required by claim 1. In brief, if no
error message is disclosed, then Cassell cannot take any action,
collection or otherwise, based on determining the contents of
the absent error message.
Furthermore, even if Cassell disclosed an error message,
Appellant respectfully submits that Cassell nonetheless still fails
to disclose a collecting component taking any action
specifically in response to determining the error message
indicates at least one storage device has failed . ...
Reply Br. 11-12, emphasis added.
8
Appeal2015-002677
Application 13/251,037
Issue on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being
anticipated?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which
the appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-12); and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-14) in response to the
Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following.
As to Appellants' above contentions 1 and 7, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Claim l recites an "error message" and further recites that
the error message "indicates that at least one storage device in the array of
storage device has failed." Neither the claim, nor Appellants' Specification,
further defines or limits the term "error message." As the Examiner
correctly found, Cassell discloses a redundant array of independent disks
("RAID") system configured to store redundant information that can be
retrieved to enable recovery of data lost when a storage device fails. Ans. 6
(citing Cassell i-f 4). Cassell further discloses that a data disk object of the
RAID system sends a notification to a RAID group object of the RAID
system, where the notification notifies the RAID group object of the failure
of the storage device. Cassell i-f 77. Because Cassell teaches that the
notification is used to notify the RAID group object of the failure of the
9
Appeal2015-002677
Application 13/251,037
storage device, we agree with the Examiner that Cassell teaches the claimed
"error message" that "indicates that at least one storage device in the array of
storage device has failed." Final Act. 9--10; Ans. 6-7.
As to Appellants' above contentions 2 and 8, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Claim 1 recites an "array record comprising storage device
characteristics of the failed storage device." Neither the claim, nor
Appellants' Specification, further defines or limits the term "storage device
characteristics."4 As conceded by Appellants in the Reply Brief, the
Examiner correctly found Cassell discloses the claimed "storage device
characteristics of a failed storage device." Ans. 9--10 (citing Cassell i-fi-166,
75, 77); see also Reply Br. 11. Further, neither the claim, nor Appellants'
Specification, further defines or limits the term "array record." We agree
with the Examiner that Cassell' s query request teaches the claimed "array
record" because Cassell teaches the query request includes the storage
device characteristics of the failed storage device. Ans. 9; see also Cassell
i1 73. Claim 1 further recites "a collecting component configured to collect
an array record comprising storage device characteristics ... in response to
determining that the error message indicates that the at least one storage
device has failed." We also agree with the Examiner that Cassell teaches the
aforementioned claim limitation because Cassell teaches: (a) a disk addition
("DISKADD") object that collects the query request including storage
4 While paragraph 81 of Appellants' Specification provides examples of the
claimed "storage device characteristics," the aforementioned paragraph
makes clear that the example characteristics are not meant to be limiting.
Spec. i1 81 ("[ s ]torage device characteristics may comprise ... any other
criteria as would be understood by one of skill in the art upon reading the
present descriptions").
10
Appeal2015-002677
Application 13/251,037
device characteristics of the failed storage devices; and, (b) the collection is
in response to the group RAID object receiving the notification of the
storage device failure from the disk object. Ans. 8-9; see also Cassell i-f 77.
As to Appellants' above contention 3, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Contrary to Appellants' argument, we agree with the
Examiner that Cassell teaches the RAID system considers storage device
characteristics of a failed storage device to find a replacement storage device
because Cassell teaches the DISKADD object examines the configuration of
the degraded RAID group (i.e., the failed storage device) to form the query
request to select the best replacement storage device. Ans. 10-11 (citing
Cassell i-fi-173, 77).
As to Appellants' above contentions 4 and 5, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. As described above, we agree with the Examiner that
Cassell teaches the RAID system compares storage device characteristics of
a failed storage device with storage device characteristics of replacement
storage devices to select a replacement storage device. Ans. 10-11 (citing
Cassell i-fi-173, 77). We further agree with the Examiner that Cassell teaches
the RAID system selects a replacement storage device for a set of candidate
replacement storage devices that "best satisfies" the replacement request
based on storage device characteristics of the failed storage device. Ans.
12-13 (citing Cassell i-f 77); see also Cassell i-fi-166, 74. As the Examiner
correctly found, by selecting a replacement storage device that "best
satisfies" the replacement request, the RAID system either selects: (a) a
replacement storage device having characteristics that are identical to (i.e.,
match) the characteristics of the failed storage device; or (b) a replacement
storage device having characteristics that are most similar to the
11
Appeal2015-002677
Application 13/251,037
characteristics of the failed storage device, in the event that a candidate
storage device that matches the failed storage device is not identified.
Ans. 12-13.
As to Appellants' above contention 6, we disagree with Appellants
that the Examiner improperly combined features from distinct embodiments
of Cassell to reject claim 1. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that
paragraph 4 of Cassell describes basic RAID concepts and terminology that
are utilized by the RAID system described in Cassell. Ans. 14 (citing
Cassell i-f 4). We further agree with the Examiner that: (a) the Examiner did
not rely on a portion of Cassell that describes operator-initiated requests
(i.e., paragraph 64 of Cassell); and, (b) the portion of Cassell that describes
the DISKADD process (i.e., paragraphs 73-77 of Cassell) does not describe
an embodiment that is distinct from the portion of Cassell that describes
demand-driven requests (i.e., paragraph 65 of Cassell) because paragraph 66
of Cassell describes that a demand-driven request results in an invocation of
the DISKADD process. Ans. 14; see also Cassell i-fi-1 64---66.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1--4, 6, 14--17, and
19 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) Claims 1--4, 6, 14--17, and 19 are not patentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 14--17, and 19 as
being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
12
Appeal2015-002677
Application 13/251,037
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
13