Appeal 2007-1779
Application 10/447,351
ISSUE
Does the applied prior art teach or would have suggested to the skilled
artisan all of the features of the claimed invention?
FINDINGS OF FACT
As indicated supra, Appellants describe a method and apparatus in
which an owner storage controller controls all input/output (I/O) operations
associated with a region of storage when an I/O request is made to a client
storage controller. The owner storage controller determines whether or not
the region of storage has already been copied. If the region of storage has
already been copied, then the owner storage controller unpends the I/O
request so that it can be processed by the client storage controller. If the
region of storage has not been copied, then a lock is placed against the
metadata associated with the region of storage so that data can be copied
within the region of storage. Thereafter, the lock is released so that the I/O
request may be processed by the client storage controller.
In a network of storage controllers, Pittelkow describes a master
controller that operates to control server access to a storage space (col. 4, ll.
12 and 13). The other controllers in the network operate as slave controllers
(col. 4, ll. 14 and 15). “The master controller functions as a storage
controller to service I/O requests to connected disks and servers” (col. 30, ll.
18 and 19).
Franklin describes a method of backing computer system data in a
backing store container that is of a smaller storage size than a read-write on-
line container (Figures 1 and 2; Abstract; col. 1, ll. 7 to 11; col. 2, ll. 39 to
42). The Franklin method permits “reliable data mapping between copied
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013