Ex Parte Zur et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2013

11156182 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2013)

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