Ex Parte Goel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

13468124 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/468, 124 05/10/2012
57299 7590 09/01/2016
Kathy Manke
A vago Technologies Limited
4380 Ziegler Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ankit Goel
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.
11-2581 4975
EXAMINER
LEE, CHUN KUAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2181
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
kathy.manke@broadcom.com
patent.info@broadcom.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANKIT GOEL, ABHIJIT SUHAS APHALE,
and MANJUSHA GOP AKUMAR
Appeal2015-004453
Application 13/468, 1241
Technology Center 2100
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 20-39. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to serially attached Small
Computer System Interface ("SCSI") - also referred to as "SAS" - for
configuration management, including "for improved flexibility in defining
zoning permissions in a SAS expander and for doing so dynamically." Spec.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is LSI Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-004453
Application 13/468, 124
if 1. Claim 20 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is
reproduced below.
20. A method operable in a Serial Attached Small Computer
System Interface expander, the method comprising:
establishing zone permissions for a plurality of physical
interfaces of the expander based on a time of day;
configuring a first of the physical interfaces of the
expander for storage operations with a first zone group
comprising an initiator and a plurality of target devices;
allowing read and write operations to the target devices
by the initiator when connections are established between the
target devices by the initiator;
detecting a time of day that changes the zone permission
of the first zone group; and
denying the write operations to the target devices by the
initiator in response to the changed zone permission.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 20, 22-24, 27, 29-31, 33, and
35-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination
of Cagno et al. (US 2008/0244620 Al; published Oct. 2, 2008) (hereinafter
"Cagno") and Bhogal et al. (US 7 ,248,563 B2; issued July 24, 2007)
(hereinafter "Bhogal").
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 21, 28, and 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Cagno, Bhogal, and
Marushak et al. (US 2005/0228924 Al; published Oct. 13, 2005)
(hereinafter "Marushak").
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 25, 26, 32, 38, and 39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Cagno,
2
Appeal2015-004453
Application 13/468, 124
Bhogal, and Miyamoto et al. (US 2005/0086447 Al; Apr. 21, 2005)
(hereinafter "Miyamoto").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in (1) the July 30, 2014 Final Office Action (Final Act. 2-13) and
(2) the January 30, 2015 Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-17). We highlight and
address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
(1) Cagno and Bhogal 's teachings
Appellants argue that the combination of Cagno and Bhogal fails to
teach or suggest any of the elements of claim 20, save the second element
beginning with "configuring." App. Br. 5. As to Cagno, Appellants contend
it "is limited to the concept of adjusting zoning parameters for a SAS
domain in response to the failure of a SAS initiator." Id. (citing Cagno
i-fi-125-26, 30, 41 ). Appellants argue Cagno (i) teaches no criteria for
changing zone permissions other than failure of an initiator, (ii) repeatedly
teaches changing SAS zone permissions as part of a failover process
(Cagno's purported purpose), (iii) fails to explain why it would be beneficial
to change SAS zone permissions, except as part of a failover process, and
(iv) "does not mention re-zoning based on the time of day." App. Br. 5-6
(citing Cagno i-fi-1 3-7, 11, Abstract).
3
Appeal2015-004453
Application 13/468, 124
As to Bhogal, Appellants argue it "does not describe SAS, does not
describe SAS zoning, and does not describe SAS expanders that alter SAS
zoning parameters." App. Br. 6. Appellants argue, moreover, Bhogal
"provides no explanation of how its techniques for TCP/IP networks could
be applied in a SAS domain." Id. Appellants further contend there are
numerous differences between SAS and TCP/IP, and that "[t]he extensive
technological differences between these types of systems create a formidable
barrier to modification. See id. at 6-7. Appellants argue "Bhogal does not
mention how its time-of-day locking mechanisms, which relate to blocking
IP packets based on their MAC address, could be applied to SAS expanders
in order to alter SAS zoning parameters." App. Br. 7.
The Examiner finds the combination of Cagno and Bhogal teaches or
suggests the elements of claim 20. Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 12-13. For
example, the Examiner finds Cagno teaches a SAS architecture with
dynamic rezoning wherein zone permissions for a plurality of physical
interfaces of the expander are established, and read and write operations to
the target devices by the initiator are allowed. See Final Act. 5 (citing
Cagno Figs. IA, 2, Abstract, i-fi-16, 24--29, 37--41). The Examiner also finds
"Cagno[] does not limit the changing of zone permission to take place only
when there is a failover operation." Ans. 12 (citing Cagno i129). As to
Bhogal, the Examiner finds it teaches restricting computer access during a
specified time period (e.g., time of day). See Ans. 13 (citing Bhogal 1: 15-
48, 3:20-29). The Examiner, thus, finds "by combining Bhogal's condition
that is based on a time of day into Cagno' s SAS architecture, the
combination would teach/suggest the SAS architecture to change zone
permission based on time of day." Ans. 12-13.
4
Appeal2015-004453
Application 13/468, 124
We agree with the Examiner and find the combination of Cagno and
Bhogal teaches or suggests the disputed elements. We agree with the
Examiner that Cagno teaches a SAS architecture in accordance with the
claim elements. See Cagno Figs. IA, 2, Abstract, i-fi-16, 24--29, 37--41. We
also agree that Bhogal teaches or suggests restricting computer access during
a specified time period (e.g., time of day). See Bhogal 1: 15--48, 3 :20-29.
We find the combined teachings (e.g., a SAS system with dynamic rezoning
for access based on a condition, and a condition for restricting access base
on a time period) teach or suggest the disputed elements. See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (finding the relevant inquiry is whether the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
light of the art's combined teachings).
Appellants incorrectly focus on the references individually without
persuasively addressing how one of ordinary skill would view the combined
teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (finding each reference "must be read, not in isolation, but for what it
fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole."). We find
Appellants' arguments unpersuasive regarding Cagno being limited to a
failover process. See In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
(quoting In re Lemelson, 3 97 F .2d 1006, 1009 ( CCP A 1968)) ("The use of
patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their
own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are
part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain."). Likewise, we
are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that Bhogal fails to explain how
its TCP/IP techniques could be applied in a SAS domain. See KSR Int'! Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) ("[I]n many cases a person of
5
Appeal2015-004453
Application 13/468, 124
ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
like pieces of a puzzle."); see also id. at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."); cf In re Nievelt,
482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references
does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
(2) Whether Bhogal is non-analogous art
Appellants argue Bhogal is non-analogous art. App. Br. 8.
Specifically, Appellants argue Bhogal is (i) not from the same field of
endeavor because "it deals with packetized TCP /IP networks, which utilize
entirely different principles of operation than SAS ones" and (ii) not
reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by Appellants because "claim 20
relates to SAS zoning features, and a person of ordinary skill in the art after
reading Bhogal would have no explanation of how Bhogal' s TCP /IP system
for packet blocking could be used to change current implementations of SAS
zoning features." Id.
The Examiner finds Appellants' "rational regarding why Bhogal is not
from the same field of endeavor seems to be similar to [A ]ppellant[ s']
rational regarding why Bhogal is not reasonably pertinent to the problem
faced by the inventor." Ans. 13. The Examiner also finds "Bhogal would be
reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor as Bhogal teaches
the condition of accessibility that is based on a time of day."
We find Bhogal is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed
invention. We find Bhogal and the claimed invention both relate to
providing/restricting computer access based on a time period (e.g., time of
day). Bhogal 1:15--48, 3:20-29; App. Br. 13 (claim 20). We also note that
the scope of analogous art is to be construed broadly. See Wyers v. Master
6
Appeal2015-004453
Application 13/468, 124
Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("The Supreme Court's
decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 ... (2007),
directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly."). Furthermore, in
determining what is analogous prior art, "any need or problem known in the
field of endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the ...
[application] at issue can provide a reason for combining the elements in the
manner claimed." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. We agree with the Examiner that a
problem Appellants faced as described in claim 20 concerns determining
when to deny computer access. See App. Br. 13 (claim 20); Spec. i-f 3. We
also agree with the Examiner and find Bhogal is reasonably pertinent to this
problem. See Bhogal 1: 15--48 ("A specification of a time period is also
received. Access to the network is then blocked through the specified port
during the specified time period."), 3:20-29.
(3) Combining Cagno and Bhogal
Contrary to Appellants' assertions (see App. Br. 8-10), we find the
Examiner provides "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Examiner reasons a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated "to include Bhogal' s restrictive access during
the specific time period into Cagno' s restrictive access of the expander for
the benefit of implementing a more robust restrictive access control ... to
obtain the invention as specified in claim 20." Final Act. 6 (citing Bhogal
1:15--48); Ans. 15.
Furthermore, we are not persuaded that combining Cagno and Bhogal
creates a non-operative system. See App. Br. 8-9; KSR, 550 U.S. at 420
("[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings
7
Appeal2015-004453
Application 13/468, 124
of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle."); see also id. at 421 ("A
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.").
(4) Read-only zone permission value
Appellants argue the combination of Cagno, Bhogal, and Marushak
fails to teach or suggest a read-only zone permission value in accordance
with claim 21. App. Br. 11. Specifically, Appellants argue the references,
and Marushak in particular, do not discuss the use of read-only SAS zone
permission values, but rather teach SCSI persistent reservations and
SCSI affiliations, which are not SAS zone permission values. Id. (citing
Marushak i-fi-120, 43--45). Appellants also contend SCSI persistent
reservations are used to associate a single SCSI initiator with one or more
drives. Id. (citing Marushak i-fi-12, 20 (arguing "Marushak notes that a
persistent reservation can give, read-only, or write-only access to a drive.").
Appellants also argue SCSI persistent reservations and SAS zone permission
values are different because, inter alia, they "are illustrated using different
terms" and have different associated standards. Id.
The Examiner finds the combination teaches or suggests a read-only
zone permission value in accordance with claim 21. Ans. 16-17. For
example, the Examiner finds that a read-only zone permission value
provides for read-only operation for the corresponding zone. Ans. 1 7. The
Examiner also finds Marushak teaches SCSI reservations for allowing read-
only operation for an initiator and corresponding storage drive(s). Final Act.
10 (citing Marushak i-fi-f 14, 18, 20, 43--45); Ans. 16-17. The Examiner thus
finds "by combining Cagno and Bhogal' s zone permission as discussed
above with Marushak's 'read-only access,' the resulting combination"
8
Appeal2015-004453
Application 13/468, 124
teaches the read-only zone permission value of claim 21. Ans. 17. In
addition, the Examiner finds Marushak also teaches or suggests providing
persistent reservations for SAS devices. Ans. 17 (citing Marushak i-f 43); see
also Marushak i-f 43 ("[I]t should be understood that this disclosure may also
provide persistent reservations and/or persistent affiliations for SAS drives
that do not support persistent reservations and/or persistent affiliations.").
We agree with the Examiner's findings and adopt them as our own.
Furthermore, we note that Marushak teaches or suggests, inter alia,
providing an initiator read only access to a SAS drive. See Marushak i-f 20.
Similarly, the language of claim 21 provides (i) for a first zone group to be
assigned a read-only permission value and (ii) a first zone group can
comprise a single initiator. App. Br. 13-14 (Claims 20-21). Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21.
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 20, as well as claims 27 and 33, and claims 22-26, 29-32, and 34--39
that depend from these claims because Appellants did not provide separate
arguments for their patentability. App. Br. 10. We also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 21, as well as claims 28, and 34, in light of
our above findings. See App. Br. 12 (grouping claims 28 and 34 with claim
21).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejections of claims 20-39.
9
Appeal2015-004453
Application 13/468, 124
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
10