John Hayes et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2019

14296170 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2019)

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.
14/296,170 06/04/2014 John Hayes P70479 1270US.1 3472
120626 7590 12/16/2019
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
Attn: IP Docketing
PO Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2138
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2019 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):
ipdocketing@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN HAYES and PAR BOTES
____________

Appeal 2018-007461
Application 14/296,170
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–20, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies Pure Storage, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 1.

Appeal 2018-007461
Application 14/296,170

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to
a method for migrating data from a first storage array to a
second storage array . . . . The method includes configuring the
second storage array to forward requests to the first storage
array and configuring a network so that second storage array
assumes an identity of the first storage array. The method
includes receiving a read request at the second storage array for
a first data stored within the first storage array and transferring
the first data through the second storage array to a client
associated with the read request. The method is performed
without reconfiguring the client and wherein at least one
method operation is executed by a processor.

Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for migrating data from a first storage array
to a second storage array, comprising:
configuring the first storage array to respond to requests
from the second storage array;
configuring a network so that the second storage array
assumes an identity of the first storage array;
receiving a read request at the second storage array for a
first data stored within the first storage array;
transferring the first data through the second storage
array to a client associated with the read request;
declaring a second data as a restore object, wherein the
second data is written to the second storage array from a source
other than the first storage array during data migration; and
tuning a backup application for restoring incremental
changes using restore objects, to write the second data from the
second storage array to the first storage array as the restore
object.
Appeal 2018-007461
Application 14/296,170

3
References and Rejections2
Name Reference Date
Ofek US 2002/0004890 A1 Jan. 10, 2002
Obara US 2004/0158652 A1 Aug. 12, 2004
Murotani US 2006/0020636 A1 Jan. 26, 2006
Hallingan US 7,640,408 B1 Dec. 29, 2009
Desai US 8,341,460 B2 Dec. 25, 2012
Karnawat US 2014/0359058 A1 Dec. 4, 2014
Madnani US 9,063,896 B1 June 23, 2015

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References
1, 3, 5–10,
13–14
103 Obara, Hallingan
4, 16–17 103 Obara, Hallingan, Ofek
2, 11, 19 103 Obara, Hallingan, Madnani, Ofek
12 103 Obara, Hallingan, Karnawat
15 103 Obara, Hallingan, Murotani
18 103 Obara, Hallingan, Ofek, Murotani
20 103 Obara, Hallingan, Ofek, Desai

ANALYSIS

Obviousness
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments. To the extent consistent
with our analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 13–24) and (ii)
the Answer (Ans. 3–26).

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated Jan.
12, 2017 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated July 12, 2017 (“Appeal.
Br.”); and (3) Examiner’s Answer dated Apr. 5, 2018 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2018-007461
Application 14/296,170

4
Appellant contends Halligan does not teach
declaring a second data as a restore object, wherein the
second data is written to the second storage array from a source
other than the first storage array during data migration; and
tuning a backup application for restoring incremental
changes using restore objects, to write the second data from the
second storage array to the first storage array as the restore
object,

as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5–12. In particular, Appellant
asserts:
the claim terms “restore object” and “a backup application
tuned to use restore objects for restoring incremental changes”,
in the context of further limitations in the claims, are not mere
labels and have bearing in claim interpretation, as contrasted to
the mechanisms and methods described in Halligan.

even though the second data was never in the first storage array
(see claim one, fifth subparagraph) and would thus not
normally be subject to restoring to the first storage array, the
second data is treated as a restore object and synchronized to
the first storage array by a backup operation tuned to perform
the restore function using the second data as the restore object.

This synchronizing, in Halligan from the migration source to
the migration destination, is in the opposite direction from the
situation in the present claims, where the migration source is
synchronized from the migration destination.

both Halligan and the present claims teach synchronization, but
they do not perform synchronization with the same tuning (e.g.,
tuning a backup operation versus tuning a copy operation) and
they do not do synchronization with the same declaration of
data (e.g., declaration of data that has never been in a
destination array as a restore object versus declaration of data
that has already been copied once to a destination array as
change map data to again be copied).
Appeal 2018-007461
Application 14/296,170

5

Appeal Br. 5–7; see also Appeal Br. 8–12.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error.
First, Appellant’s argument that “even though the second data was
never in the first storage array (see claim one, fifth subparagraph)” (Appeal
Br. 5–6) is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, because claim 1
does not require the “second data was never in the first storage array,” as
Appellant argues.
Second, in response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner provides
further findings and conclusions showing Obara and Halligan collectively
teach the disputed claim limitations. See Ans. 4–26. In particular, the
Examiner determines each of the terms “backup application” and “restore
object” only appears once in the Specification, which does not further
explain what those terms mean, and his interpretation of the terms are
appropriate and consistent with the Specification. See Ans. 4–6. The
Examiner then cites Figure 11 and excerpts from Halligan’s columns 1 and
12, and explains in details why Obara and Halligan collectively teach those
terms. See Ans. 4–7. The Examiner also determines Appellant’s arguments
are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, as claim 1 does not require
the “second data was never in the first storage array” (Appeal Br. 5). See
Ans. 7–8. The Examiner then cites Figures 3–9 and excerpts from
Halligan’s columns 12–14, and explains in detail why Obara and Halligan
collectively teach
declaring a second data as a restore object, wherein the
second data is written to the second storage array from a source
other than the first storage array during data migration; and
tuning a backup application for restoring incremental
changes using restore objects, to write the second data from the
Appeal 2018-007461
Application 14/296,170

6
second storage array to the first storage array as the restore
object,

as required by claim 1. See Ans. 7–26.
Appellant does not respond to such further findings and conclusions.
Therefore, Appellant fails to show Examiner error. See In re Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of
this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued
by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”).
See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.
For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–
20, as Appellant does not advance separate substantive arguments about
those claims.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5–
10, and
13–14
103 Obara, Hallingan 1, 3, 5–10,
and 13–14

4, 16–17 103 Obara, Hallingan,
Ofek
4, 16–17
2, 11, 19 103 Obara, Hallingan,
Madnani, Ofek
2, 11, 19
Appeal 2018-007461
Application 14/296,170

7
12 103 Obara, Hallingan,
Karnawat
12
15 103 Obara, Hallingan,
Murotani
15
18 103 Obara, Hallingan,
Ofek, Murotani
18
20 103 Obara, Hallingan,
Ofek, Desai
20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED