Ex Parte Maddocks et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 8, 2012

10757757 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 8, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte STEVEN MADDOCKS, JEFFREY DICORPO,
and BILL TORREY
____________

Appeal 2010-004609
Application 10/757,757
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004609
Application 10/757,757

2
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 12-18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27-33, and 35-42. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention concerns a storage network with an interface
manager that is communicatively coupled to a plurality of interface
controllers operatively associated with data access drives and transfer
robotics. (Abstract).
Claim 12 is illustrative:
12. A method comprising:

receiving, by an interface manager in a storage system, device
information from a plurality of interface controllers operatively associated
with storage system devices in the storage system, the device information
relating to the storage system devices;

generating, by the interface manager, a logical map identifying at least
some of the storage system devices based on the device information;

assigning, by the interface manager, the logical map to at least one
host separate from the interface manager to enable access by the at least one
host of the storage system devices;

monitoring for a change in a state of the storage system devices; and

in response to the change, modifying the logical map.

Appeal 2010-004609
Application 10/757,757

3
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 12-17, 25, 28, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over US 6,839,747 B1; issued January 4,
2005 (Blumenau) and US 6,212,606 B1; issued April 3, 2001 (Dimitroff)
and further in view of US 7,003,567 B2; issued February 21, 2006 (Suzuki).1
Claims 38 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Blumenau, Dimitroff, and further in view of Suzuki and
Applicants’ Admission of Prior Art.
Claims 21, 22, 24, 27-31, 37,2 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Blumenau in view of Dimitroff and in further
view of US 2004/0032430A1; published February 19, 2004 (Yung).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Blumenau, Dimitroff, Suzuki, and Yung.

1 Although the Examiner erroneously includes claims 26 and 34 in the
rejection (Ans. 3), these claims were cancelled. (App. Br. 2). And while the
Examiner omits claims 33, 39, and 40 from the statement of the rejection,
the Examiner nonetheless discusses these claims in the body of the rejection.
(Ans. 8, 12). We therefore presume that the Examiner intended to include
these claims in this rejection. We deem these errors harmless and present
the correct claim listing here for clarity.
2 Although the Examiner omits claim 37 from the statement of the rejection,
the Examiner nonetheless discusses this claim in the body of the rejection.
(Compare Ans. 14 with Ans. 15). Accordingly, we presume that the
Examiner intended to so reject that claim and present the correct claim
listing here for clarity.
Appeal 2010-004609
Application 10/757,757

4
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Blumenau teaches the steps of the claimed
method, including the claimed receiving, generating, and assigning steps
relating to storage system devices. (Ans. 4). The Examiner also finds that it
would be obvious to monitor for a change in the state of the storage system
devices and, in response to such a change, to modify the logical map. Id.
The Examiner notes that Suzuki discloses polling connected devices on the
storage network and displaying and monitoring a changed state of the
selected device, as well as gathering configuration information for each
connected device on the storage network and showing a map of the storage
network on a graphical user interface (GUI). (Ans. 7).
The Examiner further finds that Blumenau teaches a graphical user
interface (GUI) which provides a user the ability to (i) view the available
data storage volumes on a network, (ii) assign the data storage volumes to
different hosts in the storage network, (iii) view the topology of the network
such as hosts, storage systems and storage system disk adapters and (iv)
manage, reassign, and modify the logical map. (Ans. 4, 9, and 13). Noting
that Blumenau specifically teaches the use of the GUI to identify at least
some storage system devices on the network, but not specifically data access
disk drives or types of transfer robotics (e.g., as recited in claim 21), the
Examiner finds that Dimitroff specifically teaches identifying the storage
devices and that the process of gathering information from the devices
disclosed in Dimitroff describes the formation of a logical map. (Ans. 5-6).
Appeal 2010-004609
Application 10/757,757

5
The Examiner finds that Dimitroff also teaches identifying the devices based
on device information, which can include numbers and types of storage
system devices. (Ans. 10-11). According to the Examiner, the motivation to
combine Blumenau and Dimitroff is to allow the connected storage devices
to be dynamically controlled. (Ans. 12).
The Examiner relies on Applicants’ Admission of Prior Art to teach
observing that the physical layout of the system has changed and on Yung to
teach a plurality of interface controllers and the claimed pipeline in an
analogous art. (Ans. 17).
Appellants argue that the various parametrics in Dimitroff do not
teach generating a logical map identifying at least some of the system
storage devices. (App. Br. 8). Appellants contend that Dimitroff teaches
classifying devices into shared levels and is different from an interface
manager generating a logical map that identifies storage system devices
based on device information from controllers associated with the devices.
(Reply Br. 2). Appellants further argue that the passages of Dimitroff cited
by the Examiner refer to a storage system that includes more than one type
of storage unit located within a computer system and that the different types
of storage units can have the same parametrics or shared levels, but does not
disclose numbers and types of storage systems, their capacities or
information which can be used for generating a logical map. (App. Br. 10-
11).
Appeal 2010-004609
Application 10/757,757

6
Appellants dispute the Examiner's application of Yung, arguing that
Yung is related to providing a user interface for relatively large biological
laboratories that have many instruments of different types. (App. Br. 16).
Contending that Dimitroff, Blumenau and Yung are directed to different
applications, Appellants argue that there would be no motivation for the
combination cited by the Examiner. (App. Br. 16).

ISSUE
Have Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner’s findings
concerning Dimitroff and Yung are in error?

ANALYSIS
Claims 12-17, 25, 28, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, and 40
Claims 12-17, 25, 28, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, and 40 are rejected over the
combination of Blumenau, Dimitroff, and Suzuki.
Appellants present the following individual arguments: (i) with
respect to claims 12, 14-17, and 35, Appellants argue that the parametrics in
Dimitroff do not perform the same action as a logical map. (App. Br. 8); (ii)
with respect to claim 13, Appellants argue that Dimitroff does not hint at
aggregating configuration information for the logical map. (App. Br. 9); (iii)
with respect to claims 25, 28, 32, and 36, Appellants argue that Dimitroff
does not hint that at least one of the numbers and types of storage system
Appeal 2010-004609
Application 10/757,757

7
devices and capacities of the storage system devices can be used for
generating a logical map. (App. Br. 10-11).
Appellants’ arguments focus on Dimitroff. For example, Appellants
argue that equating the system network of Dimitroff with the logical map
that is generated based on device information from a plurality of interface
controllers operatively associated with storage system devices is erroneous.
(Reply Br. 2). However, as the Examiner emphasizes, Appellants’
Specification does not explicitly define the term “logical map.” (Ans. 18-
19). Moreover, the Examiner relies on Blumenau, not Dimitroff, to teach
the claimed feature of generating, by the interface manager, a logical map,
(Ans. 4, 9), a point not explicitly disputed by Appellants. Thus, Appellants’
argument concerning claims 12, 14-17, and 35 that the parametric values of
Dimitroff do not equate to a logical map is not persuasive.
The “computer system” referred to in Dimitroff includes a plurality of
hosts and controllers coupled to a peer network (storage area network).
(Col. 1, ll. 43-45). Dimitroff seeks to standardize and unify the description
of various capabilities of different storage units using standardized shared
levels based on parametrics. (Col. 1, ll. 30-33; Col. 2, l. 59- Col. 3, l. 3).
Dimitroff teaches developing various parametric values, including, access,
availability, ownership, and management parameters, to assess the
capabilities of storage units in a system. (Id.).
As Background, Appellants’ Specification discloses that “System
devices in the storage system can be logically configured or ‘mapped’ for
Appeal 2010-004609
Application 10/757,757

8
user access via one or more network connections.” (Spec. ¶[0003]). The
Specification discloses that logical addresses can be addressed by mapping
requests from the connection protocol used by the hosts to the uniquely
identified logical units (LUNs). (Spec. ¶[0025]).
Although Dimitroff does not use the term “logical map,” we
nonetheless find that Dimitroff’s disclosure of parametric values is relevant
to configuring or mapping system devices in the storage system for user
access via one or more network connections. Dimitroff explicitly teaches an
access parameter which indicates that a particular protocol has enabled a
controller with the ability to read or write data to the corresponding storage
unit, including enabling the host to detect the storage unit, communicate
with it, and identify it. (Col. 3, ll. 33-42). Thus, the parametric values of
Dimitroff are relevant to generating the logical map, as that term is used in
the claims, and we sustain the rejection of claims 12, 14-17, and 35. We
further find that Dimitroff’s parametric values provide information
concerning the numbers and types of storage devices and their capacities.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 25, 28, 32, and 36. Appellants
arguments in response to the rejection of claim 33 are essentially the same as
those presented with respect to claim 25 (App. Br. 12) and are not persuasive
for the same reasons.
Appellants’ arguments in response to the rejection of claim 39 are
essentially the same as those presented with respect to claims 12 and 25
(App. Br. 12) and are not persuasive for the same reasons. Appellants’
Appeal 2010-004609
Application 10/757,757

9
arguments in response to the rejection of claim 40 repeats the arguments
with respect to claim 39, adding that Dimitroff does not disclose the
connection types of the storage system devices. (App. Br. 12-13). However,
given Dimitroff’s disclosure of parameters that identify physical properties
and capacities of the storage units (col. 3, ll. 11-14) and parameters
indicating particular communication protocols and different levels of access,
Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the
connection type limitations in claim 40 obvious. (See, col. 3, ll. 32-54).
Figure 1 of Dimitroff shows many different types of storage media
with different capabilities and the plurality of parameters described indicates
that Dimitroff teaches aggregating configuration information, as recited in
claim 13. Thus, Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 12-17, 25, 28, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, and 40 over the
combination of Blumenau, Dimitroff, and Suzuki.

Claims 38 and 42
Claims 38 and 42 are rejected over Blumenau and Dimitroff and
further in view of Suzuki and Applicants’ Admission of Prior Art. Claim 42
recites the state of the storage system including the device being taken off-
line or re-cabled. The Examiner relies on Suzuki to teach monitoring the
change of state and updating the logical map. The Examiner cites
Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art only for the proposition that one possible
change of state occurs when a device is taken off line. (Ans. 33-34). Since
Appeal 2010-004609
Application 10/757,757

10
the claim is written in the alternative, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 42 on this basis.
Appellants’ arguments in response to the rejection of claim 38 are
essentially the same as those presented for claim 12 (App. Br. 15). As we
have previously discussed, Appellants’ arguments do not show error in the
rejection.

Claim 18
Claim 18 is rejected over Blumenau, Dimitroff, Suzuki, and Yung.
Appellants’ argument that the rejection of claim 18 does not address how
Yung teaches the monitoring steps (App. Br. 15), fails to recognize that this
step is taught by Suzuki (Ans. 36). Appellants do not argue that Yung does
not teach the limitation in 18 of identifying the storage system units in the
logical map as logical units. Thus, Appellants have not demonstrated that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18 over the combination with Yung.

Claims, 21, 22, 24, 27-31, 37, 41
Claims 21, 22, 24, 27-31, 37 and 41 are rejected as unpatentable over
Blumenau, Dimitroff and Yung. Appellants do not argue that Yung fails to
disclose the features cited by the Examiner, i.e., the pipeline provided as a
computer readable program recited in independent claim 21 and dependent
claims 22, 24, and 37. (Ans. 16). Instead, Appellants’ arguments that one
would not combine Yung with Blumenau, and Dimitroff (App. Br. 15-17,
Appeal 2010-004609
Application 10/757,757

11
Reply Br. 5) focus on the subject matter of the devices controlled in Yung,
i.e, instruments and sample management devices in large biological
laboratories. See Abstract. Appellants specifically argue that Yung does not
teach aggregating configuration information for data access drives (that
access data on storage media) and transfer robotics (that transfer data storage
media in a storage system). (App. Br. 17). However, as the Examiner notes,
in the rejection, Yung is combined with Dimitroff, which teaches these
features. (Ans. 40-41).
We are not convinced that Yung, which is entitled “System and
Method For Generating User Interfaces For Different Instrument Types,” is
not in the same field of endeavor as the subject matter of the present claims.
However, even if it were not in the same field of endeavor, we agree with
the Examiner that, as a reference reasonably pertinent to the problem with
which the Appellants are concerned, i.e., an interface manager for automated
storage systems (Spec. ¶[0002]), Yung is analogous art properly applied by
the Examiner in this case. See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir.
2011). Thus, we conclude that Appellants have not demonstrated that the
Examiner erred in finding that Yung could be combined with Blumenau and
Dimitroff and teaches the claimed pipeline.
Appellants argue that the rejection of claims 27-31 is defective
because claims 27-31 depend from claim 25, which is rejected over
Blumenau, Dimitroff and Suzuki, rather than Yung. (App. Br. 18).
However, Appellants present no arguments addressing how claims 27-31
Appeal 2010-004609
Application 10/757,757

12
distinguish over the combination of Blumenau, Dimitroff, and Yung (or
Suzuki). The limitations in claims 27-31, which depend from claim 25, are
also found in claim 21, which is rejected over the combination of Blumenau,
Dimitriff, and Yung. As discussed above, Appellants have not disputed that
these features are found in Yung and we agree with the Examiner that Yung
is analogous art. In view of these circumstances, Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 27-31.
Appellants arguments in response to the rejection of claim 41 are
essentially the same as those presented for claim 12 (App. Br. 12-13). As
we have previously discussed, Appellants’ arguments do not overcome the
rejection.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner’s findings
concerning Dimitroff and Yung were erroneous.

ORDER
The rejection of claims 12-17, 25, 28, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, and 40 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Blumenau, Dimitroff, and Suzuki is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 38 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Blumenau and Dimitroff and further in view of Suzuki
and Applicants’ Admission of Prior Art is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-004609
Application 10/757,757

13
The rejection of claims 21, 22, 24, 27-31, 37, and 41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Blumenau in view of Dimitroff and Yung is
affirmed.
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Blumenau, Dimitroff, Suzuki, and Yung 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk