Ex Parte Jenkins et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

13271563 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/271,563 10/12/2011 Aaron L. Jenkins
56436 7590 08/10/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82752147 6342
EXAMINER
WILLIS, AMANDA LYNN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte AARON L. JENKINS, PAUL MILLER, and
CHIUNG-SHENG WU1
Appeal2015-003910
Application 13/271,563
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, AMBER L. HAGY, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--8, and 10-15, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Technology
The application is related to allocating storage volumes if a primary
storage has become I/O limited. Spec. i-f 11. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized:
1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are Hewlett-Packard
Co. and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. App. Br. 3.
1
Appeal2015-003910
Application 13/271,563
1. A method comprising:
determining that a primary storage associated with a
computer is input/output limited, the primary storage storing
primary data;
in response to the determining, requesting and receiving
an allocation of a performance assist storage volume;
identifying the most frequently accessed of the primary
data;
replicating at least a portion but not all of the primary data
to the performance assist storage volume, the portion including
the most-frequently accessed data; and
distributing input/ output requests between the pnmary
storage and the performance assist storage volume.
Rejections
Claims 1, 6-8, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination ofLolayekar et al. (US 2003/00790181 Al;
Apr. 24, 2003) and Choi et al. (US 6,560,679 B2; May 6, 2003). Final Act.
3.
Claims 2, 4, 10, 11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Lolayekar, Choi, and Nojima et al. (US
2009/0249018 Al; Oct. 1, 2009). Final Act. 8.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination ofLolayekar, Choi, and Mohan et al. (US 2008/0147920 Al;
June 19, 2008). Final Act. 13.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination ofLolayekar, Choi, and Pettey et al. (US 2004/0172494 Al;
Sept. 2, 2004). Final Act. 14.
Claim 1 also was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as
indefinite. Final Act. 2. However, the Examiner subsequently withdrew that
rejection. Ans. 13.
2
Appeal2015-003910
Application 13/271,563
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Lolayekar teaches or suggests
"determining that a primary storage associated with a computer is
input/ output limited" and "in response to the determining, requesting and
receiving an allocation of a performance assist storage volume," as recited in
claims 1 and 13, and commensurately recited in claim 8?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10--15
In concluding that claim 1 is obvious, the Examiner finds "Lolayekar
et al teaches grouping physical storage targets into Logical unit [LU] groups
based on the physical characteristics of each system" and "[t]he system is
able to allocate which machines are assigned to which LU pool to facilitate
load balancing." Ans. 14 (citing Lolayekar i1i1 46, 49). "If a specific LU is
experiencing heavy load, this means that the system can assign high
perfonnance machines to that LU to increase total throughput for the LU as
a whole." Id. (not citing any support).
Appellants contend the Examiner "made numerous errors regarding
the teachings of Lolayekar," including that "Lolayekar says nothing
whatsoever about the 'load balancing' including the assignment of ...
'high performance machines' to the primary storage." Reply Br. 3, 5.
"Rather, at best, [Lolayekar's] 'load balancing' merely establishes that one
of multiple paths to the same 'target device' is at least slightly faster than
the remaining paths" yet "the speed differences between the different paths
to the same 'target device' tell us nothing about whether the 'target device'
itself is input/output limited." Id. at 4--5; Lolayekar i1i1206-207, 210-211.
3
Appeal2015-003910
Application 13/271,563
We agree with Appellants. We are not persuaded that Lolayekar
works as the Examiner describes. For some findings, the Examiner does not
cite any support, while for other findings, the cited paragraphs simply do not
say what the Examiner asserts they say. E.g., Ans. 14 (quoted above). Thus,
we find the Examiner has not shown that Lolayekar allocates any storage
volumes in response to determining that a primary storage is input/output
limited, as recited in independent claims 1 and 13, nor that Lolayekar
allocates any storage volumes based on response times, as recited in
independent claim 8.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 8, and 13. Claims 2, 4--7, 10-12, 14, and 15 stand
with their respective independent claims.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4--8, and 10-15.
REVERSED
4