Ex Parte Banerjee et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 13, 2019

14510829 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/510,829 10/09/2014
112792 7590 06/17/2019
Haynes and Boone, LLP (47415)
Attn: IPDocketing
2323 Victory A venue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Arindam Banerjee
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.
47415.553US01 4268
EXAMINER
WEI,JANE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2131
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2019 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@haynesboone.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARINDAM BANERJEE and DONALD R. HUMLICEK
Appeal 2017-011823
Application 14/510,829 1
Technology Center 2100
Before HUNG H. BUI, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-21, all of the pending claims of the application. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Oral arguments were
heard on June 10, 2019. A transcript of that hearing will be added to the
record in due time.
We REVERSE.
1 NetApp, Inc. ("Appellant") is the Applicant, as provided for under 37
C.F .R. § 1.46, and is also identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in
interest. See Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-011823
Application 14/510,829
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
According to Appellant, the invention relates to using dynamic
"hashing techniques in networked storage systems." Spec. ,r 1. 2
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative
and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation italicized:
1. A machine implemented method, comprising:
analyzing a plurality of input/output (I/0) requests to
determine a pattern indicating if the I/0 requests are random or
sequential; and
using the pattern for dynamically changing a first input to
a second input for computing a hash index value by a hashing
function that is used to index into a hashing data structure to look
up a cache block to cache an I/0 request to read or write data;
wherein for random 1/0 requests, a segment size is the first
input to a hashing function to compute a first hash index value
and for sequential 1/0 requests, a stripe size is used as the second
input for computing a second hash index value.
Appeal Br. 13.
2 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellant's Specification filed October 9,
2014 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed September
23, 2016; (3) the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed April 14, 2017; (4) the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed August 11, 2017; and (5) the Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") filed September 27, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-011823
Application 14/510,829
REJECTI0N3
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite. Final Act. 5---6.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejection and the
issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the limitation "wherein for random I/0 requests, a
segment size is the first input to a hashing function to compute a first hash
index value and for sequential I/0 requests, a stripe size is used as the
second input for computing a second hash index value," as recited in claim 1
and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15, is indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b ). See Final Act. 2-3. Specifically, the Examiner determines claim 1
is indefinite because "[t]he relation of the segment is not clearly defined in
the claims" and "[t]he terms 'segment' and 'stripe' are very broad terms."
Final Act. 3. According to the Examiner, as known in the art, "a stripe can
comprise segments or a segment can comprise stripes" and, as such, the
terms "'[s]tripe' and 'segment' are interpreted to be the same herein." Id.
Appellant argues the rejection is erroneous because the "specification
describes the 'segment' and 'stripe' terms such that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that stripes are written across a given
number of physical disks and that these stripes are composed of segments
that are stored on the different physical storage devices." Reply Br. 3.
3 The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 1-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 in the Answer. See Ans. 3.
3
Appeal 2017-011823
Application 14/510,829
"The legal standard for definiteness is whether a claim reasonably
apprises those of skill in the art of its scope." In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d
1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). "'[A] claim is indefinite
when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear."' In re
Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310, 1314--15 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2173.05(e)).
We agree with Appellant that, in view of the cited paragraphs of the
Specification, the Examiner has not demonstrated that one skilled in the art
would have found the disputed limitation unclear. Appellant's Specification
discloses in part:
The storage devices within a logical volume/file system are
typically organized as one or more groups, wherein each group
may be operated as a RAID. Most RAID implementations, e.g.,
a RAID-6 level implementation, enhance the reliability/integrity
of data storage through the redundant writing of data "stripes"
across a given number of physical disks in the RAID group, and
the appropriate storing of parity information with respect to the
striped data. In computer data storage, data striping is a
technique of segmenting logically sequential data, such as a file,
so that consecutive segments are stored on different physical
storage devices. Striping is useful when a processing device
requests data more quickly than a single storage device can
provide it. By spreading segments across multiple devices which
can be accessed concurrently, total data throughput is s
increased. It is also a useful method for balancing I/0 load across
an array of disks. In conjunction with this, a "stripe" herein may
refer to a block of data in data striping.
Spec. ,r 28 ( emphasis added).
In view of paragraph 28 of the Specification, one skilled in the art
would have understood data striping is a technique for dividing logically
sequential data into segments so that consecutive segments of the stripe are
stored on different physical storage devices. Thus, a stripe is made up of a
4
Appeal 2017-011823
Application 14/510,829
plurality of segments and, as such, cannot be broadly interpreted to be the
same as a "segment." Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been
able to distinguish between stripes and segments, and would have
understood, with a reasonable degree of clarity, the meaning of the terms
"segment size" and "stripe size," as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15.
In view of the above, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-21 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b).
REVERSED
5