Ex Parte Zur et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 23, 201311156182 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte URI EL ZUR, KAN FRANKIE FAN, and SCOTT MCDANIEL __________ Appeal 2010-008141 Application 11/156,182 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC B. CHEN, and GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008141 Application 11/156,182 2 This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for performing SCSI write operations via a TCP offload engine. (Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary and reproduced below, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method for performing SCSI write operations via a TCP offload engine, the method comprising: receiving an iSCSI write command from an initiator; allocating at least one buffer for handling data associated with said received iSCSI write command; communicating a ready to transfer (R2T) signal to said initiator based on said received iSCSI write command; and zero copying said data to said allocated at least one buffer. REJECTIONS Claims 1 and11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) as anticipated by Ko (Mike Ko, Technical Overview of iSCSI Extensions for RDMA (iSER) and Datamover Architecture for iSCSI (DA), RDMA Consortium (July 21, 2003)). Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) over Pandya (US 7,487,264 B2, Feb. 3, 2009) in view of Ko. 1 The Real Party in Interest is Broadcom Corp. Appeal 2010-008141 Application 11/156,182 3 ISSUES Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding that Ko discloses “allocating at least one buffer for handling data associated with said received iSCSI write command” as recited in independent claim 1? Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Pandya and Ko teaches or suggests “allocating at least one buffer for handling data associated with said received iSCSI write command” as recited in independent claim 1? ANALYSIS Issue 1: We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 7- 8) that Ko does not disclose the disputed limitation “allocating at least one buffer for handling data associated with said received iSCSI write command,” as recited in independent claim 1. The Examiner found that that the “plain meaning of the claim language [‘receiving’ or ‘received’] does not exclude any ‘allocate ahead of time’” (Ans. 10), nor does it require any specific type of allocating time sequence or arrangement for allocating (Ans. 11). According to the Examiner, pre-allocating and allocating a buffer mean the same thing in this pertinent art. (Ans. 11.) We do not agree. We construe the disputed claim limitation “allocating at least one buffer for handling data associated with said received iSCSI write command” as requiring “receiving an iSCSI write command from an initiator” before the allocation of the at least one buffer. The use of the claim term “received” in the past tense indicates a temporal restriction of Appeal 2010-008141 Application 11/156,182 4 allocating a buffer after receiving an iSCSI write command, thereby precluding the allocation (or pre-allocation) of a buffer before receiving an iSCSI write command from an initiator. Ko discloses the placement of “SCSI data into pre-allocated SCSI buffers.” (Ko 6.) Ko does not disclose allocating a buffer after receiving a write command. Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that Ko anticipates claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a). Claim 11 recites a limitation similar to that discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11. Issue 2: We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 21-23; Reply Br. 11-12) that the combination of Pandya and Ko does not render obvious independent claim 1, which recites the limitation “allocating at least one buffer for handling data associated with said received iSCSI write command.” The Examiner found that the combination of Ko and Pandya would have rendered obvious independent claim 1. In particular, the Examiner found that “Pandya appears [sic] allocating register/buffer prior to initiator issues a write command” and “1) the claim does not require any specific time sequence of ‘allocating’. . . .” (Ans. 12 (emphasis in original)). We do not agree. Pandya explains that “[t]he initiator and target first register their RDMA buffers with their RDMA controllers and then also advertise the buffers to their peer” and “[t]hen the initiator issues a write command, block Appeal 2010-008141 Application 11/156,182 5 3701 . . . .” (Col. 34, ll. 3-7.) Thus, Pandya expressly teaches that the RDMA buffer is registered before the initiator issues the write command. For the reason listed above in Issue 1, we do not agree that the combination of Pandya and Ko would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which recites the limitation “allocating at least one buffer for handling data associated with said received iSCSI write command.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2-20 recite a limitation similar to that discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 is reversed. REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation