Ex Parte Bello et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201713251752 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/251,752 10/03/2011 Adekunle BELLO END920110155US1 6353 87334 7590 06/01/2017 IBM END IPLAW (GLF) c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC 4521 Copper Mountain Lane Richardson, TX 75082 EXAMINER GEBRIL, MOHAMED M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2135 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2017 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): uspto@garglaw.com dpandy a @ garglaw. com garglaw @gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ADEKUNLE BELLO, RADHIKA CHIRRA, ANIL KUMAR KANIVEEDU DAMODARAN, and RAKESH THOUTEM Appeal 2017-000751 Application 13/251,7521 Technology Center 2100 Before: MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, AARON W. MOORE, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants’ Brief (“App. Br.”) identifies the real party in interest as International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal 2017-000751 Application 13/251,752 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to safe management of data storage using a volume manager. Spec, Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for safe management of a data storage using a volume manager (VM), the method comprising: a computer receiving an input/output (I/O) request from the VM, wherein the VM comprises an application to manage read/write access to a data storage volume comprising a portion of the data storage, wherein the data storage is accessible to a plurality of data processing systems and a plurality of VMs, and wherein the VM writes a VM signature on the data storage volume to manage the data storage volume such that corrupting the VM signature is disruptive of the management of the data storage volume by the VM; the computer determining whether the I/O request requests a data manipulation on the data storage in an address range that overlaps with an address range of the VM signature stored on the data storage; the computer, responsive to determining that the address range of the data manipulation overlaps with the address range of the VM signature, determining whether an identifier of the VM matches an identifier of a second VM associated with the VM signature; and the computer, responsive to determining that the identifier of the VM does not match the identifier of the second VM, failing the I/O request, thereby preventing an unsafe overwriting of the VM signature on the data storage. App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix). 2 Appeal 2017-000751 Application 13/251,752 REJECTIONS Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Radovanovie (US 8,347,010 Bl, iss. Jan. 1. 2013), Colgrove (US 2013/0046949 Al, pub. Feb. 21, 2013), and Peloquin (US 6,574,705 Bl, iss. June 3, 2003). Final Act. 5. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited combination teaches or suggests “the computer, responsive to determining that the address range of the data manipulation overlaps with the address range of the VM signature, determining whether an identifier of the VM matches an identifier of a second VM associated with the VM signature,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner has erred in various respects in finding the pending claims obvious over Radovanovic, Colgrove, and Peloquin. We focus our analysis on the limitation “the computer, responsive to determining that the address range of the data manipulation overlaps with the address range of the VM signature, determining whether an identifier of the VM matches an identifier of a second VM associated with the VM signature” (the “disputed limitation”), as we find it dispositive of the issues on appeal. The Examiner s Findings The Examiner finds the disputed limitation taught by Colgrove. Final Act. 6; Ans. 13—15. More specifically, the Examiner finds Colgrove teaches a VM signature because: 3 Appeal 2017-000751 Application 13/251,752 Colgrove discloses a key that may correspond to a range where the ranges corresponding to keys may overlap with other keys, where the address translation mapping table determines the overlapping address range for the key that include the volume identification information of the index of the identification of the mapping table entries, that corresponds to the claimed VM signature .... Ans. 13—14 (citing Colgrove 6—7, 36, 48, 53—56). The Examiner further finds Colgrove accomplishes the recited determination by comparing key values to other key values stored in a mapping table: Colgrove discloses where the address translation mapping table determines the overlapping address range for the key that include[s] the volume identification information of the index of the identification of the mapping table entries, that corresponds to the claimed VM signature as discussed above[,] and where the volume manager checks for the address overlapping between the first VM signature and the second VM signature for matching where the key value is compared to other key values in stored in the mapping table. Ans. 14—15 (citing Colgrove 6, 57, 71—72). Appellants ’ Contentions Appellants contend the Examiner’s reliance on Colgrove is misplaced. App. Br. 10—12. More specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner’s finding that Colgrove teaches any VM signature is in error. App. Br. 11. Appellants contend the cited sections of Colgrove relate to key values in a mapping table, and are not VM signatures because: Colgrove’s key for Colgrove’s mapping table is similar to a key used in a database to locate records from a database table using a combination of table columns. The key can be a value or a range of values and different keys can have overlapping ranges of values. A key can include an address, e.g., a logical or a virtual address in its value. 4 Appeal 2017-000751 Application 13/251,752 App. Br. 11. According to Appellants, a “VM signature” is properly understood as a “signature of a volume manager,” and Colgrove’s key values do not teach or suggest the use of a VM signature. App. Br. 11. Analysis We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Colgrove relates to maintaining a mapping table within a data storage subsystem. Colgrove Abstract. The cited portions of Colgrove relate to the use of a mapping table which can be “used for I/O redirection or translation, deduplication of duplicate copies of user data, volume snapshot mappings, and so forth.” Colgrove 1 53. The mapping table may be utilized as an address translation mapping table that includes a key “comprising a volume identifier (ID), a logical or virtual address, a snapshot ID, a sector number, and so forth.” Colgrove 1 55. As noted above, the Examiner finds the volume identification information described in Colgrove corresponds to the claimed VM signature. Ans. 13. However, the Examiner does not explain, nor is it readily apparent to us, how volume identification information can be considered a VM signature. As described by Colgrove, the volume identifier “may be used to access a volume table that conveys a volume ID and a corresponding current snapshot ID.” Colgrove 1 56. Colgrove does not indicate how, if at all, the volume identifier relates to any volume manager. As Appellants point out, a volume manager signature is a “signature of a volume manager.” A “signature” is defined as “a distinctive pattern, product, or characteristic by which someone or something can be identified.” New Oxford American Dictionary, 3d Ed. (2010). Colgrove provides no teaching that the volume identifier contained in the mapping table relates to, 5 Appeal 2017-000751 Application 13/251,752 or otherwise identifies a volume manager. As a result, we agree with Appellants that Colgrove does not teach or suggest the recited “VM signature,” and we do not sustain the rejection of claim l.2 For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of independent claims 14 and 20 which recite substantially similar limitations, nor do we sustain the rejections of claims 2—13 and 15—19 which depend from claims 1 and 14, respectively. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20. REVERSED 2 Because we have found persuasive Appellants’ arguments regarding the recited “VM signature,” we need not consider Appellants’ remaining arguments. 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation