Ex Parte Fiske et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 3, 2016

13455183 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/455, 183 04/25/2012 Rahul M. Fiske
54858 7590 10/03/2016
IBM CORP. (WIP)
c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C.
17304 PRESTON ROAD
SUITE 200
DALLAS, TX 75252
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.
SJ0920110091US1 3294
EXAMINER
THAMMAVONG, PRASITH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2137
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAHUL M. FISKE, CARL E. JONES,
SUBHOJIT ROY, and ANDREW D. WALLS 1
Appeal2015-005408
Application 13/455,183
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, AMBER L. HAGY, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-27, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to data storage and "reducing power
consumption by migrating data between tiers of a tiered storage system."
Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the
limitations at issue emphasized:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-005408
Application 13/455,183
1. A method, in a data processing system, for managmg data
segments in a tiered storage system, comprising:
recording usage pattern information for storage devices in the
tiered storage system;
analyzing the recorded usage pattern information for a
predetermined period of time;
identifYing, based on results of the analysis of the recorded
usage pattern information for the predetermined period of time, one
or more first storage devices in a first tier of the tiered storage
system that are accessed during the predetermined period of time at
a rate lower than a cold storage device threshold and may be placed
in a minimal power consumption state;
identifYing one or more data segments stored on the one or
more first storage devices that are most likely to be accessed during
a period of time in which the one or more first storage devices are
in the minimal power consumption state;
migrating the one or more data segments to one or more
second storage devices in one of the first tier or a second tier of the
storage system; and
placing the one or more first storage devices in the minimal
power consumption state, wherein access requests to the one or
more data segments are serviced by the one or more second storage
devices while the one or more first storage devices are in the
minimal power consumption state.
Rejections
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-13, 16, 17, 19, and 21-27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hutchison et al. (US 2010/0122050 Al;
May 13, 2010). Final Act. 3.
Claims 2, 3, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Hutchison and Siewert et al. (US
2010/0199036 Al; Aug. 5, 2010). Final Act. 22.
Claims 8 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Hutchison and Oliveira et al. (US 2009/0112879
Al; Apr. 30, 2009). Final Act. 25.
2
Appeal2015-005408
Application 13/455,183
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Hutchison discloses the
following limitations recited in independent claim 1:
a. "usage pattern information for storage devices";
b. "identifying, based on results of the analysis of the
recorded usage pattern information for the predetermined period of
time, one or more first storage devices in a first tier of the tiered
storage system that are accessed during the predetermined period of
time at a rate lower than a cold storage device threshold and may be
placed in a minimal power consumption state"; and
c. "identifying one or more data segments stored on the one
or more first storage devices that are most likely to be accessed during
a period of time in which the one or more first storage devices are in
the minimal power consumption state"?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Hutchison discloses "the
predetermined period of time is a period of time of off-peak utilization of the
tiered storage system," as recited in dependent claim 1 O?
ANALYSIS
The Prior Art: Hutchison
Hutchison relates to a "migration system" that includes "active disk
drives 20 that remain constantly on (powered up) or spinning, and ...
passive disk drives 30 which may be powered down or spun down following
a specified period of inactivity." Hutchison i-f 14. Hutchison discloses a
system in which frequently used files will be on the active disk drives, while
archived data that is less likely to be used will be on the passive disk drives.
According to Hutchinson, this allows for "fast access to data" via the active
3
Appeal2015-005408
Application 13/455,183
disks while also "saving energy" by shutting down the passive disks. Id. if 5.
The decision of what to archive is based on which data "meet[ s]
predetermined age requirements," such as the user setting a threshold based
on "last accessed time" or "frequency of access over a period of time." Id.
ir 15.
While normally powered down, a passive disk drive can be powered
up should data retrieval from that drive be required. Hutchison if 21. If the
same specified data "is retrieved for a second time" within a "predetermined
period of time," then "the specified data is moved or migrated from the
passive drive 30 to one or more active drives 20 ... and the passive drive 30
is powered down." Id. Otherwise, "[i]f the selected data is not retrieved for
a predetermined period of time, the passive device is powered down." Id.
Claim 1
A) "usage pattern information for storage devices"
Claim 1 recites recording "usage pattern information for storage
devices"; "analyzing" this usage pattern information; and identifying certain
storage devices "based on results of the analysis of the recorded usage
pattern information." The Examiner relies on Hutchison for disclosing the
claimed usage pattern information. Ans. 3--4. Specifically, the Examiner
relies on Hutchison's disclosure of tracking the number of times specified
data on a passive drive is accessed within a predetermined period of time,
and using that information to either migrate the specified data if it is
accessed twice within the period of time or else powering down the passive
drive. Id. (citing Hutchison if 21 ).
Appellants contend Hutchison only records usage pattern information
for data (e.g., a file), whereas claim 1 recites "usage pattern information for
4
Appeal2015-005408
Application 13/455,183
storage devices." App. Br. 5---6. According to Appellants, "the usage
pattern of specified data does not inform one about the usage of the whole
drive." Reply Br. 4. For example, a passive drive in Hutchinson may be
accessed at a "very high rate" even though no one file is accessed more than
once. See id.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive because it is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim as currently written. Appellants'
argument is premised on construing "usage pattern information for storage
devices" to require the usage pattern information be an "overall" usage
pattern or for the "whole" drive. See Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants have not,
however, directed us to sufficient evidence in the claim, the Specification, or
extrinsic sources to support this construction. To the contrary, the
Specification teaches tracking usage of not only drives but also data on
those drives, such as counters for segments of data. Spec. i-fi-134, 33. We
therefore conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of "usage pattern
information for storage devices," as recited in claim 1, includes counters for
segments of data stored on storage drives, as disclosed by Hutchinson.
Appellants are free to amend the claims if they wish to narrow this
limitation, but patent law "puts the burden of precise claim drafting squarely
on the applicant." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
B) IdentifYing devices for power down
Claim 1 recites "identifying, based on results of the analysis of the
recorded usage pattern information for the predetermined period of time, one
or more first storage devices in a first tier of the tiered storage system that
are accessed during the predetermined period of time at a rate lower than a
5
Appeal2015-005408
Application 13/455,183
cold storage device threshold and may be placed in a minimal power
consumption state."
Appellants contend the Examiner erred by relying on Hutchison
"identifying data segments that are accessed at a rate higher than a
threshold and moving the data segments," which Appellants contend does
not teach "storage devices that may be powered down because they are
accessed at a rate lower than the threshold." App. Br. 7. We are not
persuaded of error. The Examiner correctly finds Hutchison "teaches
determining if there is inactivity for a predetermined period of time [which
would analogous to the 'cold storage device threshold' as claimed] in order
to make a determination of whether to power down the passive drive." Ans.
7 (citing Hutchison i-f 21) (brackets in original). We agree with the Examiner
that inactivity of a drive constitutes a rate lower than a threshold. And for
reasons similar to above, Appellants have not presented sufficient evidence
that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "a rate," as recited in claim 1,
must be an overall access rate for the whole drive.
C) IdentifYing data for migration
Claim 1 recites "identifying one or more data segments stored on the
one or more first storage devices that are most likely to be accessed during a
period of time in which the one or more first storage devices are in the
minimal power consumption state."
Hutchison discloses that on a passive disk drive, "[ w ]hen the specified
data is retrieved for a second time, the specified data is moved or migrated
from the passive drive 30 to one or more active drives 20, ... and the
passive drive 30 is powered down." Hutchison i-f 21. The Examiner finds
Hutchison "teaches the selected data that has been migrated from the passive
6
Appeal2015-005408
Application 13/455,183
drive into the active drive would be more likely to be accessed than the data
that is stored in the passive drive(s) which are powered down." Ans. 5.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Hutchison "does not
contemplate which data are most likely to be accessed." App. Br. 6. We are
not persuaded by Appellants' argument. As the Examiner finds, and we
agree, Hutchinson teaches transferring, from a passive drive to an active
drive, the data that is most likely to be accessed. Ans. 5. Although
Hutchinson describes this process in different terms than used in the claim, a
prior art reference is not required to use identical language as the claim.
Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10, 21 (Fed. Cir.
2012). In particular, Hutchison discloses migrating data after it has been
accessed twice to achieve the goal of "providing the selected data for rapid
availability on the active drives 20 while saving energy by powering down
the passive drive 30." Hutchison i-f 19. Put another way, Hutchison
discloses moving the most frequently accessed data (e.g., data accessed at
least twice) to the active disk drives, while leaving the passive disk drives
with "old data" less likely to be used (e.g., based on "last accessed time, or
frequency of access over a period of time"), so that the passive drives may
therefore be powered down due to the lower likelihood of needing old data.
Id. i-fi-115, 17. Thus, the Examiner's finding is supported by the teachings of
the cited reference, and we are not persuaded of error.
Appellants also have not provided adequate support for their
conclusory assertion that the Examiner "does not consider the totality of the
claim, particularly the manner in which the features are related through the
use of antecedent basis," or that any required order of the method steps
substantively affects the outcome of this case. Reply Br. 5. Such
7
Appeal2015-005408
Application 13/455,183
unsupported attorney argument is entitled to little probative value. Jn re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-17, 19-21, and 23-27, which Appellants argue are
patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 8, 10; 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 1, and recites "the predetermined period
of time is a period of time of off-peak utilization of the tiered storage
system." The antecedent basis comes from claim 1 's recitation of
"analyzing the recorded usage pattern information for a predetermined
period of time."
The Examiner finds the claimed off-peak period is "analogous to that
of the time period when utilizing the passive drives ... and waiting for ... a
predetermined time period of inactivity." Ans. 10. The Examiner also finds
"passive drives" are "normally powered down, i.e. 'off-peak."' Id.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because off-peak utilization of
a passive drive "does not inform one about a period of off-peak utilization of
the entire tiered storage system." Reply Br. 7 (emphasis added). This is
similar to the argument discussed above regarding "usage pattern
information for storage devices" and we find it unpersuasive for similar
reasons. Claim 10 only recites an off-peak utilization "of the tiered storage
system." Appellants' arguments do not persuade us the broadest reasonable
interpretation of this term requires the utilization be of the "entire" storage
system, rather than components within the storage system, as we conclude
would be understood by the ordinarily skilled artisan.
8
Appeal2015-005408
Application 13/455,183
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10, and
claim 22, which Appellants argue is patentable for the same reasons. See
App. Br. 9; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-5, 7-17, and 19-27.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
9