Ex Parte Chimitt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 2013

10706345 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2013)

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. 10/706,345 11/12/2003 David Chimitt TN313 6037 27276 7590 08/22/2013 UNISYS CORPORATION Office of the General Counsel 801 Lakeview Drive, Suite 100 MailStop: 2NW BLUE BELL, PA 19422 EXAMINER PARK, ILWOO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2184 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/22/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID CHIMITT, JAMES HUNTER, JOSEPH P. NEILL, LINH D. NGUYEN, TRI T. PHUNG, and USHA SRINIVASAN ____________ Appeal 2011-003638 Application 10/706,345 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before DENISE M. POTHIER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14-16, and 18-25. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Although the Appeal Brief refer to claims 8 and 13 at various points (see Br. 7, 9, 10), claims 8 and 13 are cancelled and therefore, not before us. See Br. 7 (pending claims excludes claims 8 and 13); Ans. 2 (same); Appendix of Appealed Claims (stating claims 8 and 13 are cancelled); Br. 14 (excluding claims 8 and 13). Appeal 2011-003638 Application 10/706,345 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present invention relates to storage of digital information. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for processing input/output request packets (IRPs) directed to a Data Volume for providing a single logical storage device to users and applications of a computing system, the Data Volume having a meta-data extent and at least one data extent, wherein the meta-data extent and at least one data extent are Basic Volumes, and the method is implemented above a Basic Volume Manager, the method comprising the steps of: intercepting an initial IRP before the IRP reaches a file system associated with the IRP; evaluating the IRP by a first volume filter associated with the meta- data extent to determine the meta-data extent to handle the IRP; directing the IRP by the first volume filter to the appropriate meta- data extent; redirecting the IRP from the meta-data extent to a second volume filter associated with the at least one data extent associated with the meta- data extent; returning a response to the initial IRP from the second volume filter associated with the at least one data extent; wherein the meta-data extent is a first logical drive and the at least one data extent is a second logical drive; the Data Volume appears as a single storage volume to the users and the applications; and the meta-data extent comprises configuration information for use in setting up and maintaining the Data Volumes. THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14-16, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. See Ans. 3. Appeal 2011-003638 Application 10/706,345 3 2. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Venkatesh (US 2003/0158836 A1). See Ans. 4-13. 3. Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Venkatesh and known art. See Ans. 13; Final Rej. 12. 2 ISSUE The dispositive issues argued by Appellants are: 1. Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as failing to comply with the written description requirement? 2. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, has the Examiner erred by concluding that Venkatesh discloses: (a) a first volume filter; (b) intercepting an initial IRP before the IRP reaches a file system associated with the IRP; and (c) the method is implemented above a Basic Volume Manager as recited in claim 1? 2 The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in the final rejections, but omitted that claim in the Answer. The Examiner did not state the rejection was withdrawn (see Ans.), and Appellants responded to the rejection in the Appeal Brief (Br. 15). Therefore, the record indicates that the rejection of claim 15 under § 103 is being maintained. Appeal 2011-003638 Application 10/706,345 4 ANALYSIS THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTION On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection. The issue is whether the original disclosure reasonably conveys to skilled artisans that Appellants possessed the claimed requirement of intercepting an initial IRP before the IRP reaches a file system associated with the IRP as recited in claim 1. Appellants point to the Specification, which states that “the volume filter is conceptually above the Basic Volumes so that IRPs are processed by the volume filter prior to being processed by the Basic Volume Manager.” Spec. 7 (emphasis added); Br. 9. Appellants contend that “processing the IRP BEFORE REACHING A FILE SYSTEM to be described when the IRP is processed PRIOR to being processed by the Basic Volume Manager.” Br. 10 (emphases in original). We disagree. To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure must reasonably convey to skilled artisans that Appellants possessed the claimed invention as of the filing date. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The Examiner correctly finds that the Basic Volume Manager and a file system are not identical. See Ans. 14. The Examiner also correctly finds that “[a] volume manager is for managing physical or logical volumes used with disk storages, databases, or a file system.” Id. We agree with the Examiner that the Specification does not support the limitation “intercepting an initial IRP before the IRP reaches a file system associated with the IRP.” See Ans. 3, 14; claim 1 (emphasis added). Instead, the Specification supports the IRP being processed by the volume filter prior to being processed by the Basic Volume Manager. We note that claim 1 also cites a Appeal 2011-003638 Application 10/706,345 5 Basic Volume Manager as another claim element separate from the file system. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appellants argue that the Examiner maps the volume filter to a data mover in Venkatesh. See Ans. 10. Appellants contend that Venkatesh does not disclose (1) a volume filter, (2) intercepting an input/output request packet before it reaches the associated file system, and (3) implementing a meta file system above a Basic Volume Manager. See Ans. 10-12. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments and agree with the Examiner’s findings and reasoning as follows. The Examiner maps the recited volume filter to Venkatesh’s “‘software structure that is replicated in each data mover’s, such as a meta file system manager 146 in fig. 9, which intercepts an input/output request from a client for accessing a file in a cached array disks having file system and implemented above a Basic Volume Manager” Ans. 5, 15 (original emphasis omitted). The Examiner maps the recited Basic Volume Manager to “a storage layer for cache management and mapping of logical storage locations to physical storage locations on disk” in Venkatesh’s paragraph [0006]. Ans. 4, 15. The Examiner correctly finds that “the meta file system manager 146 . . . is above the storage layer” in Venkatesh’s Figure 8. Ans. 15 (original emphasis omitted). The Examiner maps a file system associated with the IRP to Venkatesh’s file systems 119-122 on the cached disk array 114 in Figure 8. See Ans. 4, 16. Appeal 2011-003638 Application 10/706,345 6 We also adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning on page 16 of the Examiner’s Answer, discussing intercepting an initial IRP before the IRP reaches a file system associated with the IRP, as our own. See Ans. 16. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18-25. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 15. Appellants contend that claims 3 and 15 are patentable for the same reasons as claims 1 and 14, respectively. See Br. 15. We find those contentions unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. Appellants also refer to “the Applicants’ arguments,” but do not provide any details of those arguments. See id. We are not persuaded because Appellants have not presented specific arguments. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 15. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14-16, and 18-25 is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED kis