Pure Storage, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2021

2020004389 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2021)

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.
15/158,902 05/19/2016 JOHN DAVIS P70479 12000US.1 4447
120626 7590 09/02/2021
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP/Pure Storage
Attn: IP Docketing
PO Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
PAPERNO, NICHOLAS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2132
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2021 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 DAVIS and ROBERT LEE
Appeal 2020-004389
Application 15/158,902
Technology Center 2100
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Pure Storage, Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-004389
Application 15/158,902

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to dynamically configuring a storage system
by “detecting a change to a topology of the storage system consisting of
different sets of blades configured within one of a plurality of chassis; and
reconfiguring the storage system to change an allocation of resources to one
or more authorities.” Spec. ¶ 3.
Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter,
with the disputed limitation in italics:
1. A method of dynamically configuring a storage
system to facilitate independent scaling of resources, the
method comprising:
detecting a change to a topology of the storage system
consisting of different sets of blades configured within one of a
plurality of chassis, at least one blade of the different sets of
blades having differing storage capacities, the change to the
topology including a change in the number of blades in the
storage system; and
responsive to detecting the change to the topology of the
storage system, reconfiguring the storage system to change an
allocation of resources to one or more authorities without
replicating any of the one or more authorities, each of the one
or more authorities owning a segment of data, wherein the one
or more authorities are configured to be identified through a
hashing operation performed on the segment of data.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2020-004389
Application 15/158,902

3
Name Reference Date
Forbes US 2004/0015581 A1 Jan. 22, 2004
Romero US 2005/0039183 A1 Feb. 17, 2005
Antani US 2012/0303675 A1 Nov. 29, 2012
Hayes US 8,850,108 B1 Sept. 30, 2014
Jacobs US 9,684,531 B2 June 20, 2017
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Forbes, Romero, Jacobs, and Antani. Final
Act. 2–8.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Forbes, Romero, Jacobs, Antani, and Hayes. Final
Act. 8–9.
OPINION
With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection
is in error because the proposed combination of references, and in particular
the combination of Forbes with Romero, does not teach “responsive to
detecting the change to the topology of the storage system, reconfiguring the
storage system to change an allocation of resources to one or more
authorities without replicating any of the one or more authorities” recited in
Claim 1. Appeal Br. 4–5. Appellant specifically argues that, even if the
software disclosed in Forbes is interpreted as the recited “authority,” Forbes
does not change resource allocation without replicating any of the authorities
(or software) because “Forbes relates to adjusting a server to perform a
certain function by ‘copying software (or other types of information) and
deploying the software to a different server.’” Id. at 6 (citing Forbes ¶ 24).
According to Appellant, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
Appeal 2020-004389
Application 15/158,902

4
modified Forbes with the teachings of Romero’s reallocation of resources
such that the authorities or software is deployed to another server without
duplicating the authorities. Id. at 6–7.
The Examiner relies on shifting software to change the hardware
configuration due to failure/loss of servers in Forbes for disclosing the
recited “detecting the change to the topology of the storage system.” Final
Act. 3 (citing Forbes ¶¶ 23–24). The Examiner further relies on Romero as
disclosing “reconfiguring the storage system to change an allocation of
resources to one or more authorities without replicating any of the one or
more authorities.” Id. (citing Romero ¶¶ 26–27). According to the
Examiner, “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time to modify the teachings of Forbes to reallocate resources in the
system in the same manner as taught in Romero in so as to dynamically
respond to changes in workload characteristics in a system.” Id. at 3–4
(citing Romero ¶ 17).
In the Answer, the Examiner explains that,
The teachings of Romero would allow dynamic allocation of
resources to already deployed applications in the system and
would not negate the actions of shifting the applications when
needed (such as in the case of a failure). It is another method
by which the system can allocate resources. Alternatively, if
the teachings of Romero were substituted (overriding) in for the
teachings of Forbes regarding how the resources are allocated
to a particular application (without the copying of the
software), the end result would still be the same as the assigned
resources would then be used to carry out the assigned function
of the application, such as the email service or web service used
as an example in Forbes Paragraph [0029]. This would also be
done for the same reasons (change in resource requirements and
available resources) and based on the same factors (resource
utilization and workload).
Appeal 2020-004389
Application 15/158,902

5
Ans. 7 (emphases added). The Examiner further reasons that, although
Forbes replicates the one or more authorities, the reference includes no
statement to discourage the modification or teach away from it. Id. at 8.
We agree with Appellant’s argument that the proposed combination of
Forbes with Romero does not teach or suggest “responsive to detecting the
change to the topology of the storage system, reconfiguring the storage
system to change an allocation of resources to one or more authorities
without replicating any of the one or more authorities.” Based on a review
of Forbes and Romero, we specifically agree with Appellant’s argument
(Appeal Br. 4–5) that the teachings of the references “contradict with regard
to independent claim 1 limitations ‘without replicating any of the one or
more authorities’, without adequate reasoning as to why Romero should
override or negate the teachings of Forbes.” In other words, the Examiner
has not adequately explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined Romero’s reallocation scheme where the authorities are not
duplicated with the resource allocation of Forbes where the deployment
server duplicates the authority by copying the software to another server
blade. See also Forbes ¶¶ 23–24; Romero ¶¶ 26–27.
As discussed above, on the record before us, we are persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments because the Examiner provides insufficient evidence
to support the finding that the combination of Forbes and Romero, including
the contradictory teachings related to replicating an authority or software,
teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1. More specifically,
the Examiner has not provided a prima facia case of obviousness by
articulating a line of reasoning to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified the resource allocation by copying and redeploying
Appeal 2020-004389
Application 15/158,902

6
software in Forbes with the teaching of reallocating resources without
replicating the authorities disclosed by Romero. “[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). Therefore, on the record before us, we are
constrained to conclude the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 as obvious.
CONCLUSION
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, as
well as independent claims 8 and 15 which recite similar limitations, nor of
claims 3–7, 10–14, and 17–20 dependent therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Forbes, Romero, Jacobs, and Antani. We also do not sustain the § 103
rejection of dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 over Forbes, Romero, Jacobs,
Antani, and Hayes.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–8, 10–
15, 17–20
103 Forbes, Romero,
Jacobs, Antani
1, 3–8, 10–
15, 17–20
2, 9, 16 103 Forbes, Romero,
Jacobs, Antani,
Hayes
2, 9, 16
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED