Ex Parte Bello et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2017

13251752 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2017)

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