Ex Parte Lewis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

13237760 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/237,760 09/20/2011
81744 7590
Cooper Legal Group LLC
6505 Rockside Road
Suite 330
Independence, OH 44131
04/01/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Blake Lewis
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.
067272-8301.USOl 8435
EXAMINER
GIRMA, ANTENEH B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
OPIM
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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):
docketing@cooperlegalgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BLAKE LEWIS, JOHN K. EDWARDS, VIJA Y DESHMUKH,
KAPIL KUMAR, and RAJESH DESAI
Appeal2014-006324
Application 13/237,760
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-006324
Application 13/237,760
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to handling data extent1 size asymmetry
during logical replication in a storage system. Spec., Title. Claim 15,
reproduced below with a dispositive limitation emphasized in italics, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
15. A destination storage system comprising:
a processor;
a storage interface, operatively coupled to the processor,
through which to access a plurality of mass storage devices;
a communication interface, operatively coupled to the
processor, through which to receive from a source storage
system, a plurality of data extents and a corresponding plurality
of source extent identifiers of the data extents, during a
replication of a data set from the source storage system to the
destination storage system, wherein the source extent identifiers
are independent of physical locations where the data extents are
stored in the source storage system, and wherein each of the data
extents has a first size; and
a replication module operatively coupled to the processor
and configured to complete the replication of the data set at the
destination storage system, including performing at least one of:
mapping two or more of the source extent
identifiers, corresponding respectively to two or more of
the plurality of data extents, to a single data extent
identifier corresponding to a destination data extent at the
destination storage system; or
mapping a single source extent identifier
corresponding to single data extent on the source storage
system, to a plurality of destination extent identifiers
corresponding to a plurality of destination data extents on
the destination storage system.
1 "[T]he term 'data extent,' or simply 'extent,' is henceforth used to refer to
the smallest unit of data that can be independently identified and
manipulated by a file system in a storage system. The term 'data extent' or
simply 'extent' is essentially synonymous with the term 'data block' or
simply 'block' for purposes of this description." Spec. i-f 2.
2
Appeal2014-006324
Application 13/237,760
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kleiman
Kulkarni
Shaik
Akirav
US 2003/0217082 Al
US 2006/0179083 Al
US 2006/0242283 Al
US 2011/0040728 Al
REJECTIONS
Nov. 20, 2003
Aug. 10, 2006
Oct. 26, 2006
Feb. 17, 2011
Claims 15, 19-23, and 29-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
as being anticipated by Kulkarni. Final Act. 16-22.
Claims 1 and 7-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kulkarni and Akirav. Final Act. 3-11.
Claims 2---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kulkarni, Akirav, and Kleiman. Final Act. 11-13.
Claims 16-18 and 24--28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kulkarni and Kleiman. Final Act. 14--16.
APPELLANTS' CONTENTION2
Appellants contend that because Kulkarni's block ID is generated by
the destination storage system, while any block ID subsequently provided by
the source storage system are not source extent identifiers of the received
data extents but are matching block IDs that are neither source extent
identifiers of the earlier sent files nor source extent identifiers of the
2 We note Appellants raise additional contentions of error, but we do not
reach them as our resolution of this contention is dispositive of the appealed
rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a).
3
Appeal2014-006324
Application 13/237,760
subsequently sent non-matching blocks; Kulkarni therefore fails to disclose,
teach, or suggest the disputed corresponding plurality of source extent
identifiers of the data extents as recited by the independent claims. App. Br.
6-8, 11-13; Reply Br. 2-5, 7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 15 and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kulkarni and in rejecting
independent claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kulkarni and Akirav. We agree with Appellants' conclusions as to
these rejections of the claims.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred by finding the block ID of
Kulkarni discloses the source extent identifier of claim 15 because "the
block ID of Kulkarni is generated (or added or assigned) by the destination
storage system and not received from the source storage system as claim 15
recites." App. Br. 6-7 (emphasis removed). The Examiner responds,
agreeing "the block ID's appear to be first assigned by the destination
computer ... [b]ut, the client [i.e., source computer] also uses those server
[i.e., destination computer] generated block ids in order to communicate
with the server regarding the blocks." Ans. 2-3. Appellants reply by
arguing the ID's subsequently sent by the client or source computer to the
server or destination computer are not part of the metadata of the destination
files but, instead, include only block ID's of subsequently sent matching
blocks. Reply. Br. 4--5. Therefore Appellants argue "Kulkarni fails to
disclose the requirement to 'receive [at a destination storage system] from a
source storage system, a plurality of data extents and a corresponding
4
Appeal2014-006324
Application 13/237,760
pluralit-y of source extent identifiers [Emphasis added.]' as recited in claim
15." Reply. 5.
We agree with Appellants. In particular, we do not agree with the
Examiner that any ID' s sent by the source computer to the destination
computer are source extent identifiers of the data extents received by the
communication interface of claim 15. Therefore, on the record before us, we
do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 15 or, for the same reasons,
the rejection of independent claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b ), together with
the rejection of dependent claims 19-22, and 29-33. Because the Examiner
relies on the same deficient findings and rationale in rejecting independent
claims 1and13 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), we are similarly constrained and
do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 13 or the rejections of dependent
claims 2-12, 14, 16-18 and 24--28 as the Examiner's applications of the
Akirav and Kleiman references fail to cure the deficiency in the base
rejection addressed supra. Although the Examiner additionally finds the
Shaik reference "teaches wherein the source extent identifiers are assigned
to the corresponding plurality of data extents by the source storage system"
(Non-Final Act. 22), because Shaik is not relied upon for the rejections on
appeal, we do not decide whether a rejection including Shaik would, if
made, anticipate or render obvious the claims on appeal.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-33 is reversed.
REVERSED
5