Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 27, 2021

2019005893 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 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.
14/628,700 02/23/2015 Naveen Krishnamurthy 122293-7287 7651
107592 7590 01/27/2021
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Broadcom)
600 Anton Boulevard
Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
EXAMINER
BANSAL, GURTEJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2139
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2021 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):
OCIPDocketing@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NAVEEN KRISHNAMURTHY, SRIDHAR RAO VEERLA, and
BASAVARAJ G. HALLYAL
Appeal 2019-005893
Application 14/628,700
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JAMES B. ARPIN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant avers “Avago Technologies International
Sales Pte. Limited is the owner of the patent application and the real party in
interest.” Appeal Brief 2.
Appeal 2019-005893
Application 14/628,700

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The claimed invention is directed to a “dynamic storage system
configuration and sophisticated [input/output] handling via storage
configuration attributes available in the [input/output] itself.”
Specification ¶ 3. Claims 1–26 are pending; claims 1, 8, 15, 22, and 26 are
independent. Appeal Brief 12–19. Claims 22–25 are not subject to any
pending rejection. See Final Action 7.
Claim 1 is reproduced below (emphases and some formatting added):
1. A storage controller operable to configure a storage
volume from a plurality of storage devices, the storage controller
comprising:
an interface operable to receive a first write Input/Output
(I/O) request from a host system, and to extract a storage
configuration attribute from the first write I/O request; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the interface and
operable
to identify a storage configuration required by the
first write I/O request based on the storage configuration
attribute,
to determine whether the storage volume comprises
the required storage configuration of the first write I/O request,
and
to configure a portion of the storage volume
according to the storage configuration required by the first write
I/O request in response to a determination that the storage
volume does not comprise the required storage configuration,
wherein the required storage configuration
indicates a level of data protection desired for the first write I/O
request.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Appeal 2019-005893
Application 14/628,700

3
Name2 Reference Date
Nguyen US 6,658,526 B2 Dec. 2, 2003
Reimer US 2009/0055451 A1 Feb. 26, 2009
Yusuke WO 2015/015550 A1 Feb. 5, 2015
Claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–17, 19–21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Reimer and Nguyen. Final
Action. 3.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Reimer, Nguyen, and Yusuke. Id. at 7.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(iv). We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred and
adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the
extent consistent with our analysis below. We add the following primarily
for emphasis.
A. Independent Claim 1
Appellant argues the Examiner’s obviousness rejection is in error,
because “the cited art has not been shown to disclose or suggest that a
storage configuration, which provides an indication of a level of data
protection desired for a write I/O request, is determined from a storage
configuration attribute that has been extracted from the write I/O request
itself” as claimed. Appeal Brief 6. Appellant contends Reimer’s “file size

2 All reference citations are to the first named inventor.
Appeal 2019-005893
Application 14/628,700

4
[is] not indicative of ‘a level of data protection’ desired for the file, and at no
point does Reimer disclose that the request to store the file includes
something equivalent to the claimed ‘storage configuration attribute.’” Id. at
7. Appellant further contends “Nguyen does not remedy the . . . deficiencies
of Reimer.” Id. at 8.
The Examiner finds the combination of Reimer and Nguyen renders
obvious the disputed limitations. Final Action. 3. The Examiner cites
Reimer for teaching the claimed storage configuration attribute, as “Reimer
teaches a request which includes a file size.” Answer 4; Reimer ¶¶ 14, 15.
The Examiner explains that one of ordinary skill would understand Reimer’s
“file size can reasonably be a storage configuration attribute because it
indicates the required amount of storage” and “must be extracted from the
request in order to be used.” Answer 4; see Reimer ¶ 15 (“The request to
store the file may comprise one or more data items, such as . . . a file size.”).
The Examiner further relies on Nguyen for teaching “the required
storage configuration indicates a level of data protection,” because “Nguyen
explicitly teaches that the request desires data to be stored with parity.”
Answer 4, 5; Nguyen, 8:59–61. The Examiner explains that one of ordinary
skill would understand “[p]arity data allows for redundancy,” and such
redundancy indicates “a level of data protection.” Answer 5; see also Final
Action 2 (“Nguyen clearly teaches if the storage request exceeds the
performance capabilities of a single device in the storage pool, the system
will allocate multiple storage devices and configure them as a RAIT
group.”); see Nguyen, 8:30–54. The Examiner further determines that one
of ordinary skill would also “modify the system of Reimer by incorporating
Nguyen[’s] storage system in order to allocate, configure and manage the
Appeal 2019-005893
Application 14/628,700

5
requested storage space with required configuration” in the manner claimed.
Final Action 4.
We find the Examiner’s analysis to be reasonable. In contrast,
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive, as they are not responsive to the
Examiner’s rejection. For example, Appellant presents arguments directed
to portions of Reimer (e.g., the claims of Reimer) that are not cited by the
Examiner. See Appeal Brief 7, 8 (citing Reimer claims 14 and 15).
More importantly, Appellant does not show the Examiner’s citation to
each of Reimer and Nguyen is in error. Appellant’s arguments focus on
whether “the storage configuration of Reimer is indicative of a level of data
protection for the file” when the Examiner relies on Nguyen for teaching a
level of data protection. Appeal Brief 7; cf. Final Action 4 (“Nguyen teaches
wherein the required storage configuration indicates a level of data
protection.”); Nguyen, 8:45–54. Similarly, Appellant argues Nguyen does
not teach the claimed “extracting the claimed storage configuration
attribute” when the Examiner relies on Reimer for extracting such an
attribute. Appeal Brief 9; cf. Final Action 3 (“Reimer teaches . . . to extract
a storage configuration attribute”); Reimer ¶¶ 14, 15. Appellant has not
persuasively challenged the Examiner’s specific mapping; nor has Appellant
challenged the Examiner’s combination reasoning. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.

B. Independent Claim 26
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 26,
“for at least the same reasons as those discussed above with respect to
Appeal 2019-005893
Application 14/628,700

6
claim 1.” Appeal Brief 10. Appellant further argues “[a]dditionally, the
cited art fails to disclose or suggest . . . the level of data protection is a RAID
level of data protection” as claimed. Id. Appellant contends “that the cited
art generally discloses RAID configurations is not enough.” Id.
Claim 26 includes limitations similar to independent claim 13, and
recites, “the identified storage configuration indicates a redundant array of
independent disks (RAID) level of data protection desired for the write I/O
request.” Appeal Brief 19. The Examiner finds the combination of cited
references teach or suggests the RAID level of data protection limitation,
because Nguyen teaches “[p]arity data allows for redundancy . . . .
indicat[ing] a level of data protection,” and one of ordinary skill would have
understood that “[w]hen disks are used instead of tapes, the level or data
protection is a RAID level of protection.” Answer 6; Nguyen, 8:59–61 (“the
data to be stored with parity”); Reimer ¶ 77 (“using a standard redundant
array of inexpensive disks (RAID) configuration”).
We find the Examiner’s analysis shows the references teach or
suggest the disputed limitations and that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had reason to combine their teachings to achieve the recited to
storage controller driver. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s
findings as explained in the Answer. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 26.

3 We are not persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to these limitations,
for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Appeal 2019-005893
Application 14/628,700

7
CONCLUSION
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding independent
claims 1 and 26 obvious in view of the applied references. Appellant does
not present separate substantive arguments for the remaining claims. See
Appeal Brief 9, 10. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of these claims for the same reasons.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–10,
12–17, 19–21,
26
103 Reimer, Nguyen 1–3, 5–10,
12–17, 19–
21, 26

4, 11, 18 103 Reimer, Nguyen,
Yusuke
4, 11, 18
Overall
Outcome
1–21, 26

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED