Ex Parte Sarkar

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 8, 2016

13359419 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/359,419 01/26/2012 57299 7590 08/10/2016 Kathy Manke A vago Technologies Limited 4380 Ziegler Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sourin Sarkar 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11-1868 3713 EXAMINER TAYLOR, BROOKE JAZMOND ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2181 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/10/2016 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): kathy.manke@broadcom.com patent.info@broadcom.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SOURIN SARKAR Appeal2015-001985 Application 13/359,419 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-001985 Application 13/359,419 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-20. The Examiner has indicated that the rejection of claims 4, 12, and 20 is withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. The claims are directed to systems and methods for storage protocol compliance testing. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A device compliant with a standard selected from the group consisting of Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) and Serial Advanced Technology Attachment (SATA), the device compnsmg: PHY layer logic operable to couple the device with another device; a control unit operable to direct operations of the PHY layer logic, further operable to determine that the other device is a SAS/SATA device, further operable to perform SAS/SATA protocol compliance testing on the other device to determine a degree of compliance of the other device with SAS/SAT A protocol standards if the other device is determined to be a SAS/SAT A device, the control unit further operable to alter subsequent communications with the other device in a protocol supported by the other device, based on the degree of compliance of the other device with SAS/SAT A protocol standards. 2 Appeal2015-001985 Application 13/359,419 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Herz et al. Gadsing et al. Keeley et al. US 2005/0182874 Al US 2010/0146166 Al US 2010/0303085 Al REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Aug. 18, 2005 June 10, 2010 Dec. 2, 2010 The Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claims 4, 12, and 20 and objected to the claims as allowable if written in independent form. Ans. 5. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being taught by Herz. Claims 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herz and Keeley. Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herz and Gadsing. ANALYSIS Anticipation With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant argues independent claims 1, 9, and 17 together. App. Br. 6. As a result, we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group. To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments for dependent claims on appeal, such arguments are considered waived. See 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 3 Appeal2015-001985 Application 13/359,419 Appellant argues that the Herz reference fails to disclose all the limitations of independent claim 1. App. Br. 6. The Examiner maintains that the "degree" has not been disclosed in the claim language to require anything more than determining if the device complies with the SAS or the SATA protocol. Ans. 5. The Examiner further maintains that the Specification "of the present application discloses compliancy to rely upon command completion based on time limits as an indicator, but this has not been claimed. (Paragraph [0035] of instant application publication)." Ans. 5. We further note that the Examiner has elaborated upon the rejection and provided a new citation to paragraph 30 of the Herz reference. Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief to respond to the Examiner's further clarifications and reliance upon the additional citations. Consequently, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's clarified position. Additionally, we note the Specification discloses: Testing for protocol compliance may be a simple matter of performing a SAS/SAT A operation upon the second device, and checking the responses of the second device against criteria required by SAS/SATA standards. In one embodiment, error- checking may also be performed to ensure that the detected SAS/SAT A noncompliance issue is consistent and reproducible. In some embodiments, the compliance testing may be performed, for example, during the link layer initialization stage after a link reset occurs between the second device and the first device. Spec. i-f 22. Appellant's Specification further discloses, "[a]ny metric may be used to determine the degree of compliance of the second device with SAS/SATA standards." Spec. i-f 25. Consequently, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's broadest reasonable interpretation of the Herz reference, and we sustain the rejection of representative independent claim 4 Appeal2015-001985 Application 13/359,419 1. We group independent claims 9 and 1 7 as falling with representative independent claim 1. With respect to dependent claims 5 and 13, Appellant argues: Herz does not mention protocol compliance testing performed at a SAS/SATA link-layer, and further does not discuss protocol compliance testing being performed responsive to a link reset. The Examiner cites to Herz at i-f [0028] to show this feature, but Herz at i-f [0028] does not mention what, if anything, to do in response to detecting a link reset of the coupled device. Herz certainly does not mention performing protocol compliance testing on the other device whenever a link reset is detected. App. Br. 11. The Examiner maintains, "Herz discloses the link layer module 7 5 and 7 6 being further controlled to accommodate differences in connected devices, and therefore able to use the correct corresponding protocol to communicate. (Paragraph [0007 and 0028])" Ans. 6. While we agree with the Examiner that the Herz reference mentions a link layer, the relied upon portion of the Herz reference does not disclose the claimed "control unit is further operable to perform the protocol compliance testing at a link layer, and further operable to perform the protocol compliance testing on the other device responsive to a link reset of the other device." As a result, we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of dependent claims 5 and 13. With respect to dependent claims 7 and 15, Appellant contends: "i-1 [0025] of Herz does not even mention any type of communications between the SAS/SAT A controller of Herz and the SAS/SAT A disk drives of Herz, let alone any kind of protocol compliance testing." App. Br. 12. Appellant further contends that the Examiner's reliance upon paragraph 25 and the I/O bus and protocols are irrelevant. App. Br. 12. 5 Appeal2015-001985 Application 13/359,419 Again, we note the Examiner provides additional clarifications and citations in the Examiner's Answer and Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief to further respond to the Examiner's clarifications. As a result, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's finding of anticipation of claims 7 and 15. Obviousness With respect to dependent claim 2, Appellant contends that the combination of the Herz and Keeley references fail to suggest the invention recited in dependent claim 2. App. Br. 13. Appellant further contends: Even if the Fibre Channel bridge of Keeley cited at i-f [0015] could be implemented in a SAS/SAT A topology by a person of ordinary skill to bypass something, bypassing a device is substantially different from removing the device from a SAS/SATA topology. Removing a device from a SAS/SATA topology ensures that a device is no longer available for interaction with other SAS/SAT A devices and does not carry Si~\~S/Si~\~ Ti~\~ communications for other devices. In contrast, bypassing a Fibre Channel device does not remove it from a loop topology because the device is still inherently required to carry/forward communications sent between other devices on the loop. App. Br. 13-14. In response, the Examiner merely maintains, "[t]he examiner understand[s] the function of bypassing the device is equivalent to logically removing from a topology, which is indicated by the combination of Herz and Keeley, and enables individual devices to be acknowledged or not. (Paragraph [0005, 0009, and 0015 of Keeley)." Ans. 6-7. We disagree with the Examiner, and we further note that the Keeley reference discloses a device that "has been bypassed in the loop topology and does not participate 6 Appeal2015-001985 Application 13/359,419 in the transactions exchanged over the loop topology. Rather, such a bypassed device, though physically resident in the loop topology, is logically passive and ignores most Fibre Channel transactions." Keeley i-f 7. Consequently, we disagree with the Examiner's understanding of the function of bypassing the device to be equivalent to removing from the topology. As a result, we cannot sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2, 10, and 18. With respect to dependent claim 3, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 2 (and claims 10 and 18). As a result, dependent claims 3, 11, and 19, which respectively depend thereon similarly are not sustained for the same reasons. With respect to dependent claims 6 and 14, Appellant contends that the Herz and Keeley references fail to teach or suggest the limitations of dependent claim 6. App. Br. 18. Appellant further contends claim 6 explains that the type of compliance testing, and the manner of altering communications with the other device, can vary based on user preferences programmed into the system of claim 1. App. Br. 18. The Examiner maintains "[ t ]he modified Herz not only includes programmable drivers that accommodate the differences between SAS/SAT A devices connection, but Keeley also discloses the use of further solution via firmware capabilities programmed in the system. (Paragraph [0009] of Keeley)." Ans. 7. We disagree with the Examiner and do not find that the Examiner addressed the limitation "communications are altered for the other device vary based upon user preferences programmed into the SAS/SATA device." As a result, we cannot sustain the rejection of dependent claims 6 and 14. 7 Appeal2015-001985 Application 13/359,419 With respect to claims 8 and 16, Appellant has not set forth separate arguments for patentability. Because we sustained the anticipation rejection of representative independent claim 1, we similarly sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 16 for the same reasons because Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's factual findings or conclusion of obviousness. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5 and 13 based upon anticipation, and the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 14, 18, and 19 based upon obviousness. But, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 7, 9, 15, and 17 based upon anticipation, and the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 8 and 16 based upon obviousness. We did not address claims 4, 12, and 20 because the Examiner withdrew the obviousness rejections. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, and 19; but we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 7-9, and 15-17. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8