Ex Parte Okumoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2012

11016806 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2012)

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.
11/016,806 12/21/2004 Katsuhiro Okumoto 1309.44592X00 9078
20457 7590 12/31/2012
ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP
1300 NORTH SEVENTEENTH STREET
SUITE 1800
ARLINGTON, VA 22209-3873
EXAMINER
ALSIP, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2186
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2012 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 KATSUHIRO OKUMOTO, YOSHIHITO NAKAGAWA,
HISAO HONMA and KELSHI TAMURA

___________

Appeal 2010-000770
Application 11/016,806
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, ERIC B. CHEN, and JOHN A. EVANS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000770
Application 11/016,806

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 66-108 and 121-133. Claims 1-65 and 109-120 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to virtualizing an external memory
resource as an internal memory resource and synchronizing storage contents
of a virtualized inner volume and a real inner volume. (Abstract.)
Claim 66 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
66. A virtualization system adapted to be coupled to at least
one host system and a plurality of storage systems, each of the storage
systems comprising a disk controller and a plurality of disk drives, the
disk controller forming at least one logical volume related to at least a
portion of the disk drives, the virtualization system comprising:
at least one controller forming a first virtual volume and a
second virtual volume outside of the plurality of storage systems, the
first virtual volume being related to a plurality of first logical volumes
of the storage systems, the second virtual volume being related to a
plurality of second logical volumes of the storage systems;
wherein the virtualization system is adaptive to perform
processes of
receiving a first write request during a status that data written to
the first virtual volume are not copied to the second virtual volume,
the first write request being sent from the first host system for writing
data to the first virtual volume;
recording first differential information identifying data of the
first write request;
transferring the data of the first write request to a first logical
volume of the first logical volumes, so that a first storage system of
the storage systems can write the data of the first write request to a
storage area of the disk drives related to the first logical volume;
receiving a differential copying request;
Appeal 2010-000770
Application 11/016,806

3
if the differential copying request instructs to copy differential
data from the first virtual volume to the second virtual volume,
transferring the data of the first write request to a second logical
volume of the second logical volumes for copying the data of the first
write request to the second virtual volume based on the first
differential information, so that a second storage system of the storage
systems can write the data of the first write request to a storage area of
the disk drives related to the second logical volume; and
if the differential copying request instructs to copy differential
data from the second virtual volume to the first virtual volume,
transferring data of a second write request to the first logical volume
for copying the data of the second write request to the first virtual
volume based on second differential information recorded during the
status, so that the first storage system can write the data of the second
write request to the storage area of the disk drives related to the first
logical volume; and
wherein the second differential information identify the data of
the second write request, the data of the second write request being
written to the second logical volume.

Claims 66-108 and 121-133 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over Honda (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2004/0103261 A1; May 27, 2004), Milillo (U.S. Patent No. 6,457,109 B1;
Sept. 24, 2002), and Ohno (EP 1,357,476 A2; Oct. 29, 2003).

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 22-27) that the
combination of Honda, Milillo, and Ohno would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 66.
The Examiner found that Ohno teaches the limitation:
if the differential copying request instructs to copy differential
data from the first virtual volume to the second virtual volume,
transferring the data of the first write request to a second logical
Appeal 2010-000770
Application 11/016,806

4
volume [and] . . . if the differential copying request instructs to
copy differential data from the second virtual volume to the first
virtual volume, transferring data of a second write request to the
first logical volume.
(Ans. 5-6.) The Examiner further found that Appellants’ Specification “uses
the terms logical and virtual in synonymous ways when discussing an
abstract representation of an underlying physical memory space.” (Ans. 11.)
In particular, the Examiner interpreted “[b]oth of the terms ‘virtual’ and
‘Logical’ [to] refer to an abstract representation of an underlying physical
memory space somewhere in the electronic system that allows it to be
grouped in many different ways.” (Id.)
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, we do not agree with the Examiner that Ohno teaches a
“virtual volume.” Appellants’ Specification explains that:
The virtual internal volume 7 has a virtual existence; the entity
that stores data is present inside the second storage device 2.
Specifically, the virtual internal volume 7 is constructed by
mapping an external volume 9 of the second storage device 2
into a specified level of the storage hierarchy of the first storage
device 1.
(Spec. 17: 16-22.) In one embodiment, Appellants’ Specification further
explains that “[t]he V-VOL [virtual device] 163 is not directly associated
with a physical storage region, but is a receiver for the mapping of LUs
(logical units) of the second storage device 200.” (Spec. 29:6-10.) Because
the Specification describes a “virtual volume” as having a virtual existence
instead of a physical existence, such that the virtual volume is mapped to a
logical unit, we find the Examiner’s construction that “virtual volume” as
synonymous to “logical volume” to be unreasonable.
Appeal 2010-000770
Application 11/016,806

5
Ohno relates to “controlling a storage system and to a storage control
apparatus.” (¶ [0002].) In one embodiment, “the first logic volume 11 is the
copy source and the second logic volume 21 is the copy destination.”
(¶ [0081].) Because Ohno teaches that the first logic volume 11 is the copy
source and the second logic volume 21 is the copy destination and vice
versa, Ohno does not expressly teach the limitation:
if the differential copying request instructs to copy differential
data from the first virtual volume to the second virtual volume,
transferring the data of the first write request to a second logical
volume [and] . . . if the differential copying request instructs to
copy differential data from the second virtual volume to the first
virtual volume, transferring data of a second write request to the
first logical volume.
In other words, rather than teaching copying from a first virtual volume to a
second virtual volume, Ohno teaches copying from a first logical volume to
a second logical volume.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 66
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 67-80 depend from claim 66. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 67-80 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for
the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 66.
Independent claims 81, 96, and 121 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 66. We do not sustain the
rejection of independent claims 81, 96, and 121, as well as dependent claims
82-95, 97-108, and 122-133, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 66.

Appeal 2010-000770
Application 11/016,806

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 66-108 and 121-133 is
reversed.

REVERSED

msc