Ex Parte PeacockDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 18, 201613115236 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/115,236 05/25/2011 22879 7590 07/20/2016 HP Inc, 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Eric Peacock 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. 82730729 3038 EXAMINER ALSIP, MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2136 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/20/2016 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): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIC PEACOCK 1 Appeal2015-003518 Application 13/115,236 Technology Center 2100 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, and 13-22, which are all of the claims pending in the application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Co., which is wholly-owned by Hewlett-Packard Co. and has a general or managing partner of HPQ Holdings, LLC. App. Br. 2. 2 Claims 3, 5, 11, and 12 were previously cancelled. App. Br. 2. 1 Appeal2015-003518 Application 13/115,236 Technology The application relates to a storage device determining whether a computer is booting, which can be used to decide whether to cache boot data. Abstract. Representative Claim Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the key limitation emphasized: 1. A storage device comprising: a memory to maintain a cache, the cache including a first portion for caching boot data and a second portion for caching non-boot data; and a controller to: receive a command to read data from the storage device or write data to the storage device, detect whether a computing device to which the storage device is coupled is booting by monitoring for predetermined commands provided from the computing device to the storage device and associated with a boot procedure; and determining that the computing device is currently booting when two predetermined commands are received at the storage device within a predetermined period of time, and trigger a write of the read or write data to the first portion of the cache when the computing device is booting. Rejections Claims 1, 4, 8-10, 13-15, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Mason et al. (US 2003/0142561 Al; July 31, 2003) and Chatterjee et al. (US 8,352,716 Bl; Jan. 8, 2013). Final Act. 2. 2 Appeal2015-003518 Application 13/115,236 Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Mason, Chatterjee, and Stewart (US 6,539,456 B2; Mar. 25, 2003). Final Act. 11. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Mason, Chatterjee, and Lin (US 8,195,930 B2; June 5, 2012). Final Act. 12. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Mason; Chatterjee; Bruce Allen, Monitoring Hard Disks with SMART, Linux Journal (Jan. 2004); and Chris Miller, Microsoft Windows 2000 Server Unleashed (2000). Final Act. 13. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Mason, Chatterjee, and Olszewski et al. (US 8,195,879 B2; June 5, 2012). Final Act. 15. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Mason, Chatterjee, and Miller. Final Act. 16. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Mason, Chatterjee, and Allen. Final Act. 17. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Mason, Chatterjee, Allen, Miller, Suzuki et al. (US 6,061,805; May 9, 2000), and Ding (US 6,430,663 Bl; Aug. 6, 2002). Final Act. 18. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding Chatterjee teaches or suggests "determining that the computing device is currently booting when two predetermined commands are received at the storage device within a 3 Appeal2015-003518 Application 13/115,236 predetermined period of time," as recited in claim 1, and commensurately recited in claims 10 and 13? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding Chatterjee teaches or suggests "the storage device determines that the computing device is currently performing a boot procedure if and when the second predetermined command is received within a predetermined period of time after the first predetermined command is received," as recited in claim 10, and commensurately recited in claim 15? 3. Did the Examiner err in finding Chatterjee teaches or suggests "to monitor for a plurality of the storage commands received in a particular order," as recited in claim 19? ANALYSIS The Prior Art: Chatterjee Chatterjee relates to "boot caching to accelerate boot access." Chatterjee Abstract. Some of Chatterjee' s embodiments involve multiple "thin clients" connecting to a single storage area network (SAN) over a network. Id. at 1:24--34, 4:60-5:12, FIG. 2. The thin clients can "operate without local storage drives" and instead "may use storage volumes provided on the SAN device 230 as their primary storage devices for booting." Id. at 5: 1--4, 5:8-10. Chatterjee teaches certain techniques to accelerate booting from the SAN and reduce boot delay. Id. at 5: 12-22. As part of this, Chatterjee teaches ways to "intelligently determine when a thin client 210 is booting." Id. at 5:46-62. 4 Appeal2015-003518 Application 13/115,236 Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 13, 14, 16-18, and 22 Appellant contends Chatterjee determines booting "based on one boot indicator," whereas the claims require "two predetermined commands." App. Br. 10. However, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 21) that Chatterjee expressly states "[b ]ooting can be identified at the SAN device 230 using any one of, or a combination of, indicators." Chatterjee 5:48--49 (emphasis added), 5 :59---62. Here, a "combination" teaches at least two. Appellant further argues some of Chatterjee's indicators such as "a client log-in" are "not storage commands or commands associated with a boot procedure." Reply Br. 4. Claim 1 does not require a "storage" command and Appellant has not adequately explained how a log-in would not teach or suggest storage commands (e.g., related to a stored password or stored operating system). Regardless, we find Chatterjee teaches multiple other "storage commands" associated with a boot procedure, such as "a read from a boot sector" and "detecting a specific disk read pattern employed during the boot process." Chatterjee 5:51-59. Thus, we are not persuaded of any error in the Examiner finding Chatterjee teaches or suggests the claimed "two predetermined commands." Appellant further contends Chatterjee fails to teach booting is determined when the commands are received "within a predetermined period of time." Appellant concedes Chatterjee teaches a "duration of the boot period may be specified by time" (App. Br. 11 (quoting Chatterjee 10:7- 10)), but contends this boot period "in no way relates to making a determination that a thin client ... is booting" because the "boot period is 5 Appeal2015-003518 Application 13/115,236 simply the amount of time that data is collected after the thin client has been ... determined to be booting." Id. (emphasis added). We agree with Appellant that column 10 of Chatterjee does not discuss the boot period being related to the two predetermined commands. Nevertheless, in the Final Action, the Examiner also cited Chatterjee "col. 5, line 23-62" for this limitation (Final Act. 3), which teaches: Another example of a boot indicator can include the client logging in or initially connecting/allowed immediately by a read from a boot sector or sector zero of the associated volume. Another example of a boot indicator can include detecting a specific disk read pattern employed during the boot process. Chatterjee 5:51-56 (emphasis added). We find that one indicator "followed immediately by" another indicator teaches or suggests the second indicator "within a predetermined period of time" of the first indicator. Similarly, we find a specific "pattern" of disk reads teaches or suggests two or more read commands "within a predetermined period of time" (e.g., "immediately") of each other. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Chatterjee teaches or suggests "when two predetermined commands are received at the storage device within a predetermined period of time," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 4, 6-9, 13, 14, 16-18, and 22, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 13-15, 17-20, 22; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 10, 15, 20, and 21 Claim 1 requires both commands be received within a predetermined period of time but does not specify when the period of time starts, whereas 6 Appeal2015-003518 Application 13/115,236 independent claim 10 requires the period of time start with the first command. For claim 10, in addition to the reasons discussed above for claim 1 (App. Br. 12-13), Appellant further contends Chatterjee fails to teach or suggest "if and when a second command is receive[ d] within a predetermined period of time after the [first] command." Id. at 13. However, just as discussed above for claim 1, the Examiner cited portions of Chatterjee (Final Act. 7; Ans. 22) that teach or suggest determining booting based on a second command being within a predetermined time of the first command, such as "followed immediately by" or a specific "pattern" of disk read commands. Chatterjee 5: 51-5 6. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10, and claims 15, 20, and 21, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 15-16, 20-21; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 19 Claim 19 depends from claim 10 and further recites that for the boot determination, the storage device is configured to "monitor for a plurality of the storage commands received in a particular order." In addition to the reasons discussed above for claim 10, Appellant further contends Chatterjee fails to teach or suggest the claimed commands "in a particular order." App. Br. 16. In rejecting claim 19, the Examiner relies on two alternative findings. First, the Examiner relies on Chatterjee's "common patterns" to teach the recited limitation. Final Act. 11 (citing Chatterjee 5:25-30). Appellant concedes Chatterjee teaches "common patterns" but says the phrase "merely refers to boot data common among thin clients" and "is not used to make the 7 Appeal2015-003518 Application 13/115,236 determination that a computer is booting." App. Br. 16. We agree with this aspect of Appellant's argument. See Chatterjee 5:25-28. Second, the Examiner alternatively relies on Chatterjee's teaching of a boot indicator being a "specific disk read pattern" to teach the recited limitation of claim 19. Ans. 25 (citing Chatterjee 5:54--56). Appellant contends Chatterjee's "'specific disk read pattern' is a single boot indicator of a pattern at the disk level" and "not a particular order of multiple boot indicators." Reply Br. 5 (emphasis added). We are not persuaded by this argument. The claim recites "commands" received in a particular order, not indicators. We find a pattern of disk reads teaches or suggests a plurality of disk read commands and that such commands are in a particular order. Therefore, we are unpersuaded Chatterjee fails to teach or suggest "monitor for a plurality of the storage commands received in a particular order." Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 19. DECISION For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, and 13-22. TIME TO RESPOND 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(±) (2013). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation