Ex Parte Squires et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 14, 2017

14096606 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/096,606 12/04/2013 Christoper Squires H20131040US1 6540
136113 7590 04/18/2017
Setter Rnehe T T P
EXAMINER
14694 Orchard Parkway CRAIG, DWIN M
Building A, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80023 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2017 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):
s arah @ setterroche. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPER SQUIRES and CURTIS BRUNER
Appeal 2016-007564
Application 14/096,6061
Technology Center 2100
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify HGST Netherlands B.V. as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-007564
Application 14/096,606
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to network
interface controller emulation. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of operating a storage subsystem coupled with
a host, the method comprising:
emulating, to a main processing system on the host, a
network connection through an emulated network interface
controller (NIC) to a storage volume;
receiving, over a bus between the main processing
system and the storage subsystem, a data request originated by
the main processing system and directed to the emulated NIC
that requests access to the storage volume; and
providing the main processing system with the access to
the storage volume via the emulated NIC as if the storage
volume were accessible over the network connection.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dube et al. (US 2010/0292982 Al, pub. Nov. 18, 2010)
and Tchigevsky et al. (US 2007/0189308 Al, pub. Aug. 16, 2007). (Final
Act. 7-11.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue2:
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 29, 2015); the Reply
2
Appeal 2016-007564
Application 14/096,606
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Dube and
Tchigevsky teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation,
“providing the main processing system with the access to the storage volume
via the emulated NIC as if the storage volume were accessible over the
network connection,” and the commensurate limitations recited in
independent claims 8 and 15. (App. Br. 7—8.)
ANALYSIS
For the limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in
Dube of an access controller, including a storage emulation module coupled
to a processor in a computer system such that storage media in the access
controller appears as if it is local to the computer system. (Final Act. 7—10;
Dube Fig. 1, H 7, 26, 45.) The Examiner also relies on the disclosure in
Tchigevsky of a NIC emulator linking a virtual machine communicating
using the Ethernet networking interface to a wireless networking bridge.
(Final Act. 10—11; Tchigevsky Fig. 1, || 28—29.)
Appellants argue, inter alia, the Examiner errs because Dube is
concerned with making storage appear local, whereas the claims are directed
to making storage appear as if it were accessible over a network connection.
(App. Br. 7.) I.e., “Dube fails to teach or suggest emulating, to a main
processing system on the host, a network connection through an emulated
NIC to a storage volume, as recited by [the claims].” (App. Br. 8.)
Appellants further argue Tchigevsky’s teaching of using an emulated
network interface controller to emulate a network connection between a
Brief (filed Aug. 3, 2016); the Final Office Action (mailed June 26, 2015);
and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed June 3, 2016) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2016-007564
Application 14/096,606
virtual machine and a wireless network does not teach emulating a bus
connection to storage as if over a network. (Id.)
In response, the Examiner further relies on the disclosure in Dube of
the ability of the access controller to forward input/output requests from the
computer system to network-attached storage so as to provide redundancy to
the storage media of the access controller. (Final Act. 9; Ans. 7; Dube
45, 56.) However, we agree with Appellants that this aspect of Dube
discloses the Access Controller exchanging data with the network-attached
storage via a separate network interface controller and an actual network,
and thus provides no teaching of providing access to storage via an emulated
NIC as if the storage volume were accessible over the network connection.
(App. Br. 8.) We are also not persuaded the Examiner’s claim interpretation
is reasonable, which would equate actual accessing of storage over an
actual network as satisfying the claim requirement of emulating access as if
via a network. (See Final Act. 10.)
In sum, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not provide
prima facie support for the rejections. “[T]he examiner bears the initial
burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a
prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992). On the record before us, we are constrained to find the
Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1,8, and 15.
CONCEUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 over Dube and Tchigevsky. We
also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2—7, 9-14, and 16—
4
Appeal 2016-007564
Application 14/096,606
20 over Dube and Tchigevsky, which claims are dependent from claims 1, 8,
or 15.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20.
REVERSED
5