Ex Parte Schilling et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 19, 2016

12639853 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/639,853 12/16/2009
57299 7590 07/21/2016
Kathy Manke
A vago Technologies Limited
4380 Ziegler Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jason B. Schilling
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.
09-0183 7605
EXAMINER
HASSAN, AURANGZEB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/21/2016 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 STA TES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON B. SCHILLING and JOSHUA P. SINYKIN
Appeal2014-009216
Application 12/639,853
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-19. No other claims are pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-009216
Application 12/639,853
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) expander comprising:
a first interface for coupling the expander with another
SAS device;
a second interface for coupling the expander with another
SAS expander;
a third interface for coupling the expander with one or
more storage devices;
a routing circuit coupled with the first and second
interfaces, the routing circuit adapted to receive a SAS frame
through the first interface from said another SAS device, the SAS
frame comprising a destination SAS address, the routing circuit
further adapted to selectively forward the SAS frame to said
another SAS expander through the second interface based on the
destination SAS address; and
a Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID)
controller circuit coupled with the routing circuit, the RAID
controller circuit adapted to receive the SAS frame from said
another SAS device through the routing circuit and the first
interface, the destination address of the SAS frame is associated
with a RAID logical volume that comprises a portion of each of
the one or more storage devices, the SAS frame comprising a
portion of an I/O request directed to the RAID logical volume,
the RAID controller circuit further adapted to process the portion
of the I/O request in accordance with RAID storage management
techniques by communicating with the one or more storage
devices through the routing circuit and the third interface.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1---6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Kalwitz et al. (US 2009/0094620 Al,
published Apr. 9, 2009). Claims 9, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view ofKalwitz and Nakajima et al. (US
2
Appeal2014-009216
Application 12/639,853
2007/0220204 Al, published Sept. 20, 2007). Claims 7, 12, 16, and 17,
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Kalwitz,
Nakajima, and Elliot et al. (US 2008/0189723 Al; Sept. 20, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding that claim 1 is
anticipated by the "High Data Availability SAS-Based Raid System"
disclosed in Kalwitz. Specifically, Appellants argue "Kalwitz fails to
disclose or suggest RAID control circuitry of a SAS expander that can
receive and/or process SAS frames," and "Kalwitz further fails to disclose a
RAID controller of an expander that can receive SAS frames and process
I/O requests within those SAS frames in accordance with RAID techniques."
Br. 7. Appellants argue "while the RAID controller of claim 1 is an element
of a SAS expander, the RAID circuitry of Kalwitz is not an element of a
SAS expander but in fact is separate from it" (Br. 9), as evidenced by
Kalwitz's description of a SAS expander as a separate element, distinct from
the CPU. Br. 9-10 (citing Kalwitz i-f 25 as disclosing a SAS expander within
a RAID controller).
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. Appellants'
Specification describes a "RAID Capable SAS Expander" (Spec. Fig. 1) that
is "enhanced for RAID storage management capability by the addition of [a]
RAID circuit." Spec. i-f 16. The "RAID circuit" may be implemented as a
processor. Spec. i-f 16 (the RAID circuit "may be implemented as a general
or special purpose processor executing instructions suitably programmed for
performing RAID storage management"). Further, Appellants' Specification
states that the RAID circuit "is adapted to 'snoop' (e.g., monitor) SAS
3
Appeal2014-009216
Application 12/639,853
frames received through first interface" (Spec. if 16) and, upon detecting
receipt of a SAS frame destined for a RAID logical volume, the RAID
circuit determines what portions of the RAID logical volume are affected by
the I/O request represented by the received SAS frame (Spec. if 18).
Interpreting claim 1 in light of Appellants' Specification, we agree
with the Examiner's reliance on Kalwitz's disclosure for the contested
limitations. The Examiner finds (Final Act. 3; Ans. 2-3), and we agree,
Kalwitz discloses a RAID controller that includes a SAS expander and
"CPU subsystem" comprising "any processor capable of executing stored
programs." Kalwitz if 3 7. Kalwitz discloses that its CPU subsystem
receives and processes I/O requests that specify a logical block number and
number of blocks of data to be transferred to or from a redundant array. The
CPU subsystem translates the I/O request into the appropriate physical block
number, number of blocks, and disk to be used in performing the transfer.
Kalwitz iii! 38 (further stating the processor "performs the translation
according to well-known RAID techniques"), 67 (describing routing and
transfer of frames).
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that
Kalwitz fails to disclose a RAID control circuit that receives SAS frames as
claimed. See Spec. iii! 16, 18. We are further unpersuaded by Appellants'
arguments that tum on the "known meaning" of the term SAS expander (see
Br. 9-11 ), as those arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim
1, which is not limited to an ordinary, known SAS expander.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that Kalwitz fails
to disclose "[the received] SAS frame comprising a portion of an IIO request
directed to the RAID logical volume, the RAID controller circuit further
4
Appeal2014-009216
Application 12/639,853
adapted to process the portion of the I/O request in accordance with RAID
storage management techniques" and "the destination address of the SAS
frame is associated with a RAID logical volume." Br. 10-12. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Kalwitz discloses these limitations with its description
of address translations performed by the CPU subsystem. Final Act. 3
(citing Kalwitz i-f 38); Ans. 2-3. Appellants' arguments do not substantively
address or rebut the Examiner's findings and are, therefore, unpersuasive of
error. Further, Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope
of claim 1, as the arguments are premised on the plain meaning of an SAS
expander and unsupported contentions regarding aspects of the "normal SAS
environment," none of which is reflected in claim 1 or the Examiner's
findings.
Having considered the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments and the evidence of record, we agree with the Examiner's
reliance on Kalwitz and sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellants rely on
the same arguments for each of claims 2-19, and we sustain the Examiner's
rejections of claims 2-19 for the same reasons. We adopt as our own the
Examiner's findings, conclusions, and reasoning in the Final Rejection and
the Examiner's Answer.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5