Ex Parte Pooni et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 23, 2009

10260411 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte SUBRAMANIYAM POONI, VIJAY SRINATH, VIKRAM
KRISHNAMURTHY, and RAJKUMAR MANGALORE
____________________

Appeal 2008-003902
Application 10/260,411
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided:1 June 23, 2009
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative
Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-003902
Application 10/260,411

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 25-27, 31-33, 37, and 38. Claims 1-21, 28-30, 34-36, and 39 stand
objected to as allowable but for their dependence upon a rejected base claim.
We do not address those claims in this appeal. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We REVERSE.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention is a system and method for
generating a persistent path to an SCSI (small computer system interface)
device for a host (Abstract).

Exemplary Claim(s)
Claim 25 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:

25. A method for generating a persistent path identifier of a SCSI
device for a host, comprising the steps of:

opening a non-UID-based device file for the SCSI device;

obtaining identifier data regarding the SCSI device;

determining a unique identifier (UID) based on the identifier data; and

Appeal 2008-003902
Application 10/260,411

3
generating a UID-based device file according to the UID and the non-
UID-based device file.

Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Heitman US 2003/0177168 A1 Sep. 18, 2003
(filed Oct. 5, 2001)

Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 25-27, 31-33, and 37-38 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Heitman.

ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 102(a): claims 25, 31, and 37
Appellants assert if a DO (device object) corresponded to the claimed
non-UID-based device file and a LU ID (logical unit ID) corresponded to the
claimed unique ID (UID), Heitman would still have to teach generating a
special type of DO based upon (1) a regular DO and (2) an LUN ID (App.
Br. 6-7, ¶ B.). However, Appellants contend the Heitman only associates a
given LUN ID with a physical DO (id.). Thus, Appellants assert Heitman
does not disclose generating a UID-based device file according to the UID
and the non-UID-based device file (id.).
Appeal 2008-003902
Application 10/260,411

4
The Examiner responds that Heitman discloses relationships and
associations between devices thus teaching identification of SCSI devices
based on an identifier as recited in Appellants’ claims (Ans. 5). Further, the
Examiner finds Heitman’s association of devices based on identifiers reads
on the level of being a UID-based device (id.).
Issue: Have Appellants met the burden of showing the Examiner
erred in finding Heitman discloses generating a UID-based device file
according to the UID and the non-UID-based device?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Appellants’ Invention
(1) Appellants’ describe their invention as a method and apparatus
for generating persistent path identifiers (Abstract). An SCSI (small
computer system interface) is queried for its path information (Abstract). If
path information is returned, the SCSI device provides identifier data used to
determine a UI (unique identifier) from which a UID-based device file is
generated (Abstract).
(2) Special device files (“device files”) are used to access devices
which are connected to a Linux system (Spec. 1, [0004]). Device files are
kept in a /dev directory and are given device file names representative of
their function (Spec. 1-2, [0004]).
(3) Device file persistence across rebooting is attained by creating
unique logical unit identifier-based (UID-based) device file names for all
Appeal 2008-003902
Application 10/260,411

5
LUNs (e.g., identifiers of logical units) seen by a Linux host (Spec. 13,
[0048]). The UID provides a unique logical unit ID that is independent of
the logical unit path mapping (id.). UID-based device file names remain the
same even after a reboot of the Linux OS and if UID-based device file
names are utilized when mounting file systems on SCSI devices on Linux
host computers, device file persistence is insured across all reboots of the
OS. (id.).
(4) A UID uniquely determines the LUN, irrespective of the
multiple paths to the device thus solving reconfiguration issues (Spec. 15,
[0056]). Each UID-based device file name contains the UID and a path
number (Spec. 18, [0066]). The path number is determined by computing
UIDs for all device files in a specific direction (id.).

Heitman’s Invention
(5) Heitman describes a method and apparatus for validating data
from multiple sources in storage area networks (Abstract). A discover
engine or other functionality executing on a manager digital data processor
validates information gathered from a selected host concerning a selected
component or relationship based on a scan object that is associated with a
component or relationship object (Abstract).
(6) The manger digital data processor provides for assignment of
storage devices to the selected and other host digital data processors
Appeal 2008-003902
Application 10/260,411

6
(Heitman 10, [0128]). Each of the storage devices is associated with one or
more logical units (LUNs) (id.).
(7) Scanners running on the hosts query the storage devices to
gather raw information regarding attributes e.g. logical units, of the storage
devices (Heitman 18, [0280]). The scanners provide the information to the
manager which uses this information, an algorithm, support information, and
previous scan information to assign identifiers to the storage logical units
(LUN ID) (id.).
(8) A LUN ID is composed of various fields, include an algorithm
identifier, vendor ID, product ID, and identifier number, although it is not
typically intended to be parsed for accessing its individual fields (Heitman
18, [0292]). Though alternate embodiments may use different field and
overall lengths, a character limit ensures that the LUN IDs can be persisted
as unique identifiers within the SAN manager persistence service (id.).
(9) Various exemplary algorithms utilized by the SAN manager to
form unique LUN are used, each being based on different data obtained
(Heitman 18, [0293]).
(10) In normal operation, the port driver generates a physical device
object for each identified device (Heitman 33, [0533]). A filter driver
compares identified devices against LUN IDs listed in a data table that lists
LUN IDs assigned to associated hosts or to devices from which access to the
Appeal 2008-003902
Application 10/260,411

7
host is to be blocked (Heitman 33, [0532] –[0535]). A list of LUNs is stored
and is used to communicate changes to accessibility of LUNs to the
operating system (Heitman 34, [0543]).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
"To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently." In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). According to the single
source rule, all the claim's limitations must be contained in a single
reference, see, e.g., Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and
the reference "must describe the patented subject matter with sufficient
clarity and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art
and that such existence would be recognized by persons of ordinary skill in
the field of the invention," Crown Operations Int'l, Ltd. v. Solutia Inc., 289
F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Anticipation, unlike claim construction, is
a question of fact, and it requires proof by clear and convincing evidence.
Hazani v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(a): claims 25, 31, and 37
Heitman describes a LUN ID is formed or generated from various
fields and is a fixed size (FF 9). The LUN ID may include an algorithm
Appeal 2008-003902
Application 10/260,411

8
identifier, vendor ID, product ID, and identifier number (id.). The Examiner
cites Heitman’s generation of LUN ID as generating a UID-based device file
according to the UID and the non-UID based device file (Ans. 3-4).
However, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Hietman
describes associating the LUN ID with a given physical storage device or
DO (device object) (FF 7), not “generating a UID-based device file
according to the UID and the non-UID-based device file” (see claim 25 and
analogous language in claims 31 and 37). We find, as Appellants have
agreed (App. Br. 7), the LUN ID may be considered a unique ID (UID).
However, we find the Examiner’s finding lacking in sufficient detail in
explaining how Heitman, in discussing generating a LUN ID, discloses
generating a device file according to the UID and the non-UID based device
file, or how generating a LUN ID is generating a device file as the Examiner
contends. Without such detail, we would be left to speculate.
Therefore, based on the record before us, Appellants have met the
burden of showing the Examiner erred in finding Heitman discloses
generating a UID-based device file according to the UID and the non-UID-
based device.

Appeal 2008-003902
Application 10/260,411

9
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, Appellants have
met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in finding that claims 25, 31,
and 37 are anticipated by Heitman under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Since claims
26 and 27 depend directly from claim 25, and claims 32 and 33 depend
directly from claim 31, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26-27
and 32-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 25-27, 31-33, and 37-38 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Heitman is reversed.

REVERSED

rwk

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P O BOX 272400, 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS CO 80527-2400