Ex Parte Beeson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

14099820 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/099,820 12/06/2013 Jesse D. BEESON
142922 7590 11/02/2017
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
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.
C67508 1080US.l 1535
EXAMINER
GIARDINO JR, MARK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2135
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 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@wcsr.com
MGencarella@wcsr.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
(Applicant: CONCURRENT VENTURES, LLC)
Appeal2017-005950
Application 14/099 ,820
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants list Pure Storage, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1
Appeal2017-005950
Application 14/099 ,820
Introduction
Appellants state the invention relates to "dynamically load balancing
storage media devices based on a minimum performance level." Spec. 2:4--5
(Field of Invention), Title.
What is absent in the prior art is a system and method that
brings load balancing methodologies typically applied at a
macro level (to networks outside of the storage systems or
compute systems) down to the micro level within the storage
system itself and [is] applied across the storage media devices
within that system using criteria specific to storage media
devices.
Spec. 2:14--19.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A storage system comprising:
a plurality of storage media devices, each storage media
device comprising one or more 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 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 in said plurality of storage media devices;
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
2
Appeal2017-005950
Application 14/099 ,820
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.
App. Br. 18 (Claims App'x).
Rejections
Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Belluomini (US 8,706,962 B2; Apr. 22, 2014),
Chatterjee (US 6,675,195 Bl; Jan. 6, 2004), and Merchant (US 2011/
0145449 Al; June 16, 2011). See Final Act. 3-7.2
Claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Belluomini, Merchant, Chatterjee, and Rabii (US 2010/
0281230 Al; Nov. 4, 2010). See Final Act. 8.
ISSUES (APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS)
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 13 because
the cited prior art cited does not teach or suggest the following limitations:
( 1) "a plurality of storage media devices, each storage media device
comprising one or more addressable storage regions, each region
assigned a weight based on at least a fast or slow access rate,
2 The Final Rejection incorrectly identifies the numbering for several claims
and fails to discuss the grounds of rejection for claim 10. It is apparent the
Examiner intended to reject claim 10 for the same reason as claim 3 and, in
any event, Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's omission. Our
summary of the rejections corrects the Examiner's errors.
3 Appellants argue the patentability of claims 2-15 solely based on the
arguments presented for claim 1. App. Br. 15-17. Accordingly, all claims
stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2017-005950
Application 14/099 ,820
where regions having fast access rate are weighted differently
than regions having slow access rate" (App. Br. 6-10);
(2) a storage controller that "identifies 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 in said plurality of storage media
devices" (id. at 10-11);
(3) a storage controller that "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" (id. at 11-12); and
( 4) a storage controller that "receives one or more commands from a
queue representing a load" (id. at 12-14).
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions of reversible error. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions.
Instead, for each contested finding, we adopt the Examiner's findings and
reasons as set forth in the Final Rejection from which this appeal is taken
and as set forth in the Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
1. Storage Devices Comprising Weighted Addressable Storage Regions
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies primarily on Belluomini,
which discloses a multi-tier storage system in which each tier "has a single
and unique type of storage based on a storage tiers' performance/cost/energy
4
Appeal2017-005950
Application 14/099 ,820
profile" (Belluomini 3 :4 7--49). See Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds,
inter alia, Belluomini teaches "a plurality of storage media devices, each
storage media device comprising one or more 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," as recited. Id. at 3 (citing Belluomini Fig. 1, 3:41-
65).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because "Belluomini does not
teach that each storage device comprises one or more addressable storage
regions that are each assigned a weight based upon an access rate." App.
Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants contend the Examiner errs because
"Belluomini is silent as to assigning weight to any storage region of the
storage devices 108a-n. Belluomini is silent as to assigning a weight to a
storage region that is weighted differently based upon its associated access
rate." App. Br. 8. This argument is unpersuasive.
We agree with the Examiner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have understood Belluomini' s storage devices to have addressable storage
regions. See Final Act. 3, Ans. 4--5. The artisan further would have
understood Belluomini, by disclosing assignment of storage devices to tiers
based on performance, teaches or suggests assigning a storage device to a
tier based on an associated access rate of the storage device. See Final Act.
3, Ans. 3-5; see also Belluomini' s Background and Brief Summary ( 1: 15-
2 :34) (discussing performance criteria such as "high random access
capability per gigabyte" for solid-state drives, and using "data access and
resource information" for configuring different data storage devices into
different performance tiers).
5
Appeal2017-005950
Application 14/099 ,820
We agree with the Examiner that, by assigning one device to a "tier
with high performance storage" and a second device to a "tier with cheaper
and more conventional storage" (Belluomini 3 :41---65), the artisan would
have understood that "media with a fast access rate is weighted by the
system of Belluomini to be assigned to a first tier, and media with a slow
access rate is weighted by the system of Belluomini to be assigned to
another tier" (Ans. 5). In other words, by disclosing assignment to tiers
based on relative performance, Belluomini teaches assigning a relative
performance "weight" for a storage device (and its constituent region(s)). 4
In reply, Appellants argue the Examiner errs by not showing how
Belluomini teaches "storage regions within a storage media device that are
assigned weights individual to each storage region within the storage media
device." Reply Br. 2. This argument is unpersuasive. The requirement of
"each storage media device comprising one or more addressable storage
regions," as recited, requires a storage device to have no more than one (i.e.,
"one or more") addressable storage region. The broadest reasonable
interpretation, in light of the Specification, of "a plurality of storage media
devices, each storage media device comprising one or more 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," as the skilled artisan
would have understood it, encompasses Belluomini' s tiered storage system
4 In view of Appellants' Specification and Claims, "weight" encompasses
the ordinary, relevant dictionary meanings of "importance" and "relative
6
Appeal2017-005950
Application 14/099 ,820
in which the storage regions of storage devices are assigned to tiers with
different performance levels. See Ans. 3-5.
We note that, consistent with Appellants' argument in the Reply Brief,
the storage devices of Appellants' preferred embodiment in the Specification
and Drawings each have multiple storage regions with different access rates.
See Fig. 1, Spec. 9:7-16. We decline to limit the scope of claim 1 based on
this embodiment. On this point Appellants' Specification is clear: "[ w ]hile
this specification contains many specific implementation details, these
should not be construed as limitations on the scope of any invention or of
what may be claimed, but rather as descriptions of features that may be
specific to particular embodiments of particular inventions." Spec. 21: 16-
19; see also id. at 22: 18-19 ("particular embodiments of the subject matter
have been described, but other embodiments are within the scope of the
following claims").
2. Identifying Weighted Storage Regions having Slow and Fast Access Rates
The Examiner finds Belluomini' s assignment of storage to different
tiers based on different performance level requirements teaches a storage
controller that "identifies 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 in said plurality of
storage media devices," as recited. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Belluomini Fig. 3).
Appellants argue "Belluomini does not recite 'weighted storage regions,'
and much less a controller that 'identifies' a first and second set of 'weighted
storage regions,' as required." App. Br. 11.
This argument is unpersuasive for essentially the same reasons as the
prev10us issue. We agree with the Examiner that identifying "a first set of
7
Appeal2017-005950
Application 14/099 ,820
weighted storage regions having a slow access rate across said plurality of
storage media devices" encompasses Belluomini' s disclosure of a storage
device assigned to a tier based on its relatively slow access rate, and that
identifying "a second set of weighted storage regions having a fast access
rate in said plurality of storage media devices" encompasses Belluomini' s
assignment of another storage device to a different tier based on its relatively
faster access rate. See Ans. 6. As discussed above, storage devices include
storage regions, and assigning storage devices (and their storage region(s))
to tiers effectively assigns the tiers' performance levels (access rate-based
weights) to the storage regions.
3. Distributing the Load Based on Minimum Performance Level
The Examiner finds the combined disclosures of Belluomini and
Merchant teach or suggest a controller that
distributes said load based on said identified mimmum
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,
as recited. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Belluomini Fig. 3, Merchant i-fi-120, 37).
Appellants argue that
because Belluomini is silent as to support for weighted []
storage regions of the plurality of storage media devices and a
storage controller that identifies a first and second set of
weighted storage regions possessing the access rates as required
in the claims, Belluomini does not disclose a storage controller
that distributes a load within the first and second weighted
storage region based on weights that include prev10us
performance and real-time performance, as required.
8
Appeal2017-005950
Application 14/099 ,820
App. Br. 12.
This is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, as discussed above, an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that Belluomini, by
teaching assignment of storage devices with different access rates to
different performance tiers is not silent as to the claimed identifying of first
and second weighted storage regions with different access rates. Second,
this argument does not address the Examiner's finding that Merchant teaches
the requirement of "wherein the performance level is based on weights that
include previous performance and real time performance," as recited. See
Final Act. 5. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (each reference cited by the Examiner
must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination
with the prior art as a whole).
4. Controller that Receives Commands from a Queue Representing a Load
The Examiner finds the combined disclosures of Belluomini and
Chatterjee teach a storage controller that "receives one or more commands
from a queue representing a load," as recited. Final Act. 3-5 (citing
Belluomini 3:41-52, Chatterjee Fig. 3B, 6:15-34). Appellants argue the
Examiner errs because "Belluomini' s I/O requests are not commands
representing a load" and "Chatterjee does not teach that one or more
commands representing a load are received ~from a queue,"' as recited by
claim 1. App. Br. 13. Appellants contend the Examiner errs in relying on
Chatterjee for teaching the requirement to receive commands from a queue
because "Chatterjee discloses that a command receiver module 310 receives
9
Appeal2017-005950
Application 14/099 ,820
a commandfrom the client application software coupled at input 308 and
stores the command in the queue 320 to be executed at a later time." Id.
Appellants further contend the Examiner errs because "Chatterjee fails to
disclose that the commands received by the command receiver module 310
are commands that 'represent a load.'" Id.
The Examiner answers by finding "the I/O request taught [by]
Belluomini represents a load. However, Belluomini does not teach a
queue." Ans. 8. Acknowledging that Chatterjee "teaches storing commands
in a queue 'to be executed at a later time,"' the Examiner finds that, by
receiving these commands back out of the queue at a later time, Chatterjee,
in view of Belluomini, teaches "receiv[ing] one or more commands from a
queue representing a load," as recited. Id. at 9 (citing Chatterjee 4:58---61).
We agree with the Examiner. An ordinarily skilled artisan would
have understood the receipt of I/O requests by the multi-tier storage system
in Belluomini (see 3 :42--43) constitutes receiving commands that represent
an I/O load on the storage system. The artisan would also have understood
Chatterjee's disclosure of storing of received commands in a queue for later
execution (Chatterjee Figs. 3A-B; 4:5-16)5 also teaches later receiving the
commands from the queue for execution. Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that the combination of Belluomini and Chatterjee teaches a storage
controller that "receives one or more commands from a queue representing a
load," as recited. See Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 8-9. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at
425 (the relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have
5 We agree with the Examiner "that is extremely common in the art for a
computing device to store received commands in a queue, so that if the
computing device is occupied with other tasks and cannot immediately
execute the command upon receipt, the command is not lost." Ans. 9.
10
Appeal2017-005950
Application 14/099 ,820
been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined
teachings of those references).
Conclusion
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1
and, along with it, the rejections of claims 2-15, for which Appellants offer
no substantive separate arguments.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-15 under
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11