Ex Parte Thomas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2018

15011656 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/011,656 01/31/2016
81744 7590
Cooper Legal Group LLC
6505 Rockside Road
Suite 330
Independence, OH 44131
10/26/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Deepak Thomas
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.
124.POl-010735.01.US.PRI 7862
EXAMINER
CHEONG, ANDREW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2138
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2018 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 DEEP AK THOMAS, DAN SARISKY,
NAGENDER SOMA V ARAPU, and SANTOSH LOLA YEKAR 1
Appeal2018-003422
Application 15/011,656
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JENNIFER L.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-8 and 10-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants the Real Party in Interest is NetApp, Inc. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2018-003422
Application 15/011,656
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for allocating virtualized storage resources from a
storage system that includes physical storage resources to a virtualization
system that allocates virtual volumes to virtual machines executing within
the virtualization system, said method comprising:
defining, by processing circuitry within an intermediary system that
is communicatively coupled to the storage system and the virtualization
system, a storage container comprising one or more logical storage volumes
of a logical storage array of the storage system;
associating the storage container with a virtual volume datastore that
comprises multiple virtual volumes;
identifying metadata for virtual volumes within the virtual volume
datastore, wherein the metadata for the virtual volumes includes
information identifying virtual machines to which the virtual volumes have
been allocated;
recording the metadata for the virtual volumes within the
intermediary system; and
writing the metadata for the virtual volumes to the storage system.
Borthakur et al.
("Borthakur")
V aghani et al.
("V aghani")
Rejections
US 7,657,530 B2
US 2013/0055249 Al
ANALYSIS
Feb.2,2010
Feb.28,2013
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the principal and
dispositive issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting exemplary
claim 1 turns on whether Vaghani discloses "associating the storage
container with a virtual volume datastore that comprises multiple virtual
2
Appeal2018-003422
Application 15/011,656
volumes" (hereinafter "the disputed limitations"). App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br.
3-7. Independent claims 11 and 16 recite similar subject matter. 2
We adopt the findings of facts made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the decision
reached by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer. We highlight the
following for emphasis.
Appellants contend V aghani does not disclose the disputed
limitations. App. Br. 7. In particular, Appellants contend "Vaghani
discloses no component such as a virtual volume datastore that 'contains' or
otherwise represents the allocated virtual volumes." App. Br. 7.
Initially, we agree with the Examiner's findings (Ans. 4) because
Appellants have not cited to an explicit definition of a "virtual volume
datastore" in the Specification that is inconsistent with or otherwise would
preclude the Examiner's construction of "virtual volume datastore."
"In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretations ... limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir.
1993) ( citations omitted). Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be
sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common
usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the
invention." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473,
1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip.,
Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own
2 Appellants did not provide separate arguments with respect to the
patentability of claims 2-8, 10, 12-15, and 17-21.
3
Appeal2018-003422
Application 15/011,656
lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from
its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly
express that intent in the written description."). Absent an express "intent
to impart a novel meaning to the claim terms, the words are presumed to
take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of
ordinary skill in the art." Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,
334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( citation omitted).
The Examiner has identified the relevant portions of V aghani and has
provided sufficient explanation with corresponding citations to various
parts of the reference for disclosing the disputed limitations. Ans. 4--7. In
particular, the Examiner finds
Within the context of the claim, a "virtual volume datastore" is
only defined by: 1) comprising multiple virtual volumes, and
2) being associated with a storage container, and the
specification does not enforce a reading of the claims
regarding what constitutes a "virtual volume datastore" beyond
what is required by the claim. Therefore, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the element includes the plain
meaning of a datastore that comprises multiple virtual
volumes.
V AGHANI' s Figure 2A depicts a plurality of virtual
volumes ( or "vvols" # 151 to # 156), where the aggregate total
of all the vvols represent Appellant's "virtual volume
datastore." As the Appellant conceded on page 7, end of first
paragraph, VAGHANI's "storage containers" also teaches
Appellant's "storage containers" in paragraph [0046], where a
plurality of vvols are created from the storage containers,
further illustrated in FIG. 2A #142A, #142B, and #142C. In
other words, a plurality of vvols can make up a storage
container, where the aggregate total of vvols represent
Appellant's "virtual volume datastore."
Ans. 4--5.
4
Appeal2018-003422
Application 15/011,656
In other words, Vaghani explicitly discloses that vvols are created
"from logical 'storage containers,' which represent a logical aggregation of
physical [data storage units (DSUs)]." Vaghani ,r 46. We also agree with
the Examiner's finding Vaghani' s storage containers and a collection of
multiple vvols within (and therefore associated with) a storage container
disclose the disputed limitations.
The Examiner, giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, has properly found that Vaghani discloses
the disputed limitations, as explained above.
Appellants provided additional arguments that Vaghani does not
disclose "identifying and recording VM-specific metadata for the virtual
volumes within the intermediary system," as required by claims 1, 11, and
16. App. Br. 9-12; Reply Br. 6-7. We have considered these arguments
and find them unpersuasive. In addition, we note the Examiner has rebutted
these arguments in the Answer by a preponderance of the evidence (Ans. 6-
7), finding Vaghani discloses storing IDs of applications, which can be
virtual machines (see Vaghani ,r,r 45, 51-52 ("Another example is the App
ID, which is the ID of the application that stored data in the vvol.")). We
agree with the Examiner's findings and underlying reasoning and adopt
them as our own.
We have considered Appellants' Reply Brief but find it unpersuasive
in rebutting the Examiner's responses.
It follows that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 16. Thus, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 10-12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and21 under35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
5
Appeal2018-003422
Application 15/011,656
Appellants have provided no separate arguments towards
patentability for claims 3, 13, and 18. Therefore, the Examiner's§ 103
rejection of claims 3, 13, and 18 is sustained for similar reasons to those
noted supra.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's § 102(b) rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 10-
12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and21 and the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of claims
3, 13, and 18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6