2019005470 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2021)

Concurrent Ventures, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 14, 2021

2019005470 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2021)

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. 14/099,820 12/06/2013 Jesse D. BEESON C67508 1080US.1 1535 142922 7590 01/14/2021 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP P.O. Box 7037 Atlanta, GA 30357-0037 EXAMINER GIARDINO JR, MARK A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2135 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/14/2021 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): IPDocketing@wbd-us.com Mike.Gencarella@wbd-us.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JESSE D. BEESON and JESSE B. YATES Appeal 2019-005470 Application 14/099,820 Technology Center 2100 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Concurrent Ventures, LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-005470 Application 14/099,820 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “dynamically load balancing storage media devices based on a minimum performance level.” Spec. 1:4–5. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A storage system comprising: a plurality of storage media devices, each storage media device comprising a plurality of addressable storage regions, each region assigned a weight based on at least a fast or slow access rate, where regions having fast access rate are weighted differently than regions having slow access rate; a storage controller controlling said plurality of storage media devices, said storage controller: receives one or more commands from a queue representing a load; identifies a minimum performance level required for said load; identifies, in the plurality of storage media devices each comprising the plurality of addressable weighted storage regions, a first set of weighted storage regions having a slow access rate across said plurality of storage media devices and a second set of weighted storage regions having a fast access rate; identifies a subset of storage regions within said first set of weighted storage regions having a slow access rate that satisfies said identified minimum performance level; and distributes said load based on said identified minimum performance level by utilizing only said subset of storage regions within said first set of weighted storage regions having said slow access rate and holding said second storage region having said fast access rate in reserve wherein the performance level is based on weights that include previous performance and real time performance. Appeal 2019-005470 Application 14/099,820 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Chatterjee US 6,675,195 B1 Jan. 6, 2004 Rabii US 2010/0281230 A1 Nov. 4, 2010 Merchant US 2011/0145449 A1 Jun. 16, 2011 Belluomini US 8,706,962 B2 Apr. 22, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1–3, 6–9, and 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103 as obvious over Belluomini, Chatterjee, and Merchant. Non-Final Act. 2–6. Claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Belluomini, Chatterjee, Merchant, and Rabii. Non-Final Act. 6–7. OPINION The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–3, 6–9, and 13–15 over Belluomini, Chatterjee, and Merchant The Examiner finds Belluomini, Chatterjee, and Merchant teach all limitations of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 2–4; see also Ans. 3–5. In particular, the Examiner finds Belluomini teaches “a plurality of storage media devices, each storage media device comprising a plurality of addressable storage regions, each region assigned a weight based on at least a fast or slow access rate, where regions having fast access rate are weighted differently than regions having slow access rate” (claim 1) as recited in claim 1. See Non- Final Act. 2–3 (citing Belluomini, col. 1, l. 60–col. 2, l. 11, col. 3, ll. 41–65) (“[T]he [claimed] storage media devices correspond[] to [Belluomini’s] storage devices 108 of Figure 1, the [claimed] storage regions correspond[] to [Belluomini’s] extents . . . each region of storage devices 108 is assigned Appeal 2019-005470 Application 14/099,820 4 a weight corresponding to the tier it is in, which is assigned based on performance.”). Appellant presents the following principal arguments: (i) The Examiner appears to be arguing that storage regions in storage devices 108 to which the storage extents are assigned inherit or share the property of the performance/cost/energy profile of the entire storage tier to which those storage devices belong. Still, there is no explicit showing in Belluomini [(col. 1, l. 60–col. 2, l. 11)] that individual storage regions in storage devices 108 are individually assigned a weight, as a literal read of the present claim limitations requires. Appeal Br. 8. (ii) The passage [(Belluomini, col. 3, ll. 41–65)] describes each storage tier having a single and unique type of storage and a performance/cost/energy profile, but does not disclose sub- dividing each storage device 108 into regions and assigning each region in each storage device 108 a weight based on fast or slow access rate. Appeal Br. 9–10. (iii) The Examiner has erred by misconstruing the claims. The claims read on storage media devices each having differing regions with differing weights (fast access rate, slow access rate) as shown in Fig. 1 and described in the present specification. The claims are misconstrued to read on storage media devices in storage tiers as shown and described in Belluomini, where each storage tier has a single and unique type of storage but each storage media device is not described as having differing regions with differing weights. Appeal Br. 10. Appeal 2019-005470 Application 14/099,820 5 We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We do not see any reversible error in the Examiner’s contested findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.” See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Contrary to Appellant’s argument (iii), claim 1 does not require any particular individual storage media device to include both fast access rate regions and slow access rate regions. See Claim 1 (“each storage media device comprising a plurality of addressable storage regions, each region assigned a weight based on at least a fast or slow access rate”). We interpret claim 1 as encompassing within its scope a storage system including a first storage media device in which all regions have a fast access rate, and a second storage media device in which all regions have a slow access rate. Belluomini discloses “[t]he storage system comprises a plurality of storage tiers and each of the storage tiers includes storage devices of a particular type of storage.” Belluomini, col. 1, ll. 61–63. Belluomini further discloses “[e]ach storage extent is assigned to a particular one of the storage tiers that would incur the lowest cost to the storage system for storing the Appeal 2019-005470 Application 14/099,820 6 storage extent.” Belluomini, col. 2, ll. 5–8. Thus, we find Belluomini describes “a plurality of storage media devices” (Belluomini’s storage devices), “each storage media device comprising a plurality of addressable storage regions” (Belluomini’s regions where the storage extents are stored) as recited in claim 1. Belluomini further discloses Each of the storage tiers has a single and unique type of storage based on a storage tiers’ performance/cost/energy profile. The multi-tier storage system comprises different types of storage and seeks to align data’s value, importance, and performance requirements with the reliability and performance of the actual storage the data resides on. Belluomini, col. 3, ll. 47–52. Thus, we further find Belluomini describes “each region assigned a weight” (Belluomini’s storage tier where the storage extent is stored) “based on at least a fast or slow access rate” (Belluomini’s different tiers are composed of different types of storage), “where regions having fast access rate are weighted differently than regions having slow access rate” (Belluomini’s different tiers are composed of different types of storage) as recited in claim 1. Thus, contrary to Appellant’s arguments (i) and (ii), Belluomini’s region where the storage extent is stored is “assigned a weight” (claim 1) due to its location in a particular storage tier. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 6–9, and 13–15, which are not separately argued with particularity. See Appeal Br. 6–12. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 over Belluomini, Chatterjee, Merchant, and Rabii Appeal 2019-005470 Application 14/099,820 7 Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 4, 5, 9, and 10. See Appeal Br. 13. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 9, and 10. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 6–9, 13–15 103 Belluomini, Chatterjee, Merchant 1–3, 6–9, 13–15 4, 5, 9, 10 103 Belluomini, Chatterjee, Merchant, Rabii 4, 5, 9, 10 Overall Outcome 1–15 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED