Ex Parte Umamageswaran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 26, 2018

12691146 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/691,146 01/21/2010 Kothanda Umamageswaran
42425 7590 12/28/2018
HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
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.
50277-3757 9185
EXAMINER
VERBRUGGE, KEVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2132
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2018 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KOTHANDA UMAMAGESWARAN,
JUAN R. LOAIZA, UMESH PANCHAKSHARAIAH,
ALEXANDER TSUKERMAN, TIMOTHY L. SHETLER,
BHARAT C.V. BADDEPUDI, BORIS ERLIKHMAN,
KIRAN B. GOY AL, NILESH CHOUDHURY, SUSY FAN,
POOJAN KUMAR, SELCUK AY A, and SUE-KYOUNG LEE
Appeal2017-004634
Application 12/691,146 1
Technology Center 2100
Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
20 and 22-36. Claim 21 is canceled. The Board decided a previous Appeal
1 Appellants identify Oracle International Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-004634
Application 12/691,146
relating to the present Application with a Decision dated September 29,
2015. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
According to the Specification, "[t]he present invention relates to
caching data and, more specifically, to selectively reading data from cache
and primary storage." Spec. ,r 8. Claims 1, 5, 8, 17, 22, 31, and 32 are
independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed invention.
1. A method comprising:
during a period in which an intermediate cache is already
storing a second set of items and a particular cache is not storing
the second set of items:
receiving at a storage system, from a software
application executing in a computer system that includes
volatile memory, at least a portion of which is used as the
particular cache, one or more first I/0 requests;
wherein the one or more first I/0 requests are I/0
requests to retrieve items involved in a scan operation that
targets data that resides on persistent primary storage
managed by the storage system;
wherein the intermediate cache, managed by the
storage system, is logically positioned between the volatile
memory of the computer system and the persistent primary
storage;
wherein the scan operation requires a first set of
items and the second set of items; and
in response to the one or more first I/0 requests, the
storage system performing the steps of:
issuing one or more second I/0 requests to
the intermediate cache, managed by the storage
system, for the second set of items required by the
operation; and
2
Appeal2017-004634
Application 12/691,146
providing the first set of items required by the
operation from the persistent primary storage, and
the second set of items required by the operation
from the intermediate cache managed by the storage
system;
wherein the storage system only issues the one or
more second I/0 requests to the intermediate cache for the
second set of items after determining that the intermediate
cache is not overloaded.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-11, 22-25, and 32-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable in view of Mark et al. (US 2006/0271740 Al;
Nov. 30, 2006) and Gaither et al (US 2008/0104329 Al; May 1, 2008).
Claims 12-16 and 26-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable in view of Mark, Gaither, and Blumenau et al. (US
2003/0115324 Al; June 19, 2003).
Claims 17-20 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Liu et al. (US 2004/0117441 Al; June 17, 2004),
Gaither, and Blumenau.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Mark teaches each step of claim 1 except that
Mark does not teach "scan operations per se" or considering the load on an
intermediate cache prior to issuing an I/0 request to the intermediate cache,
as required by the last "wherein" clause of claim 1. Final Act. 3--4. The
Examiner finds Gaither teaches methods for bypassing an overloaded cache
and issuing requests to a cache after determining that the cache is not
3
Appeal2017-004634
Application 12/691,146
overloaded. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Gaither ,r,r 17-20, Fig. 3). Further, the
Examiner finds Gaither teaches that bypassing a cache when it is overloaded
may improve the speed of data retrieval such that a person of ordinary skill
would have been motivated to combine its teachings with those of Mark, and
the Examiner concludes a person of ordinary skill would have found it
obvious to implement the teachings of Gaither with Mark's system to
improve data retrieval speeds. Final Act. 5-6 ( citing Gaither ,r 28).
Appellants acknowledge that Mark teaches components arranged
similar to those relevant to claim 1 (Appeal Br. 11) and that Gaither teaches
bypassing a cache when the cache is overloaded (Appeal Br. 16). However,
Appellants argue that Mark teaches how conventional storage systems
manage their caches while the arrangement and context of Gaither' s system
and methods are fundamentally different than the claimed method which
involves retrieving data from persistent primary storage when an
intermediate cache is overloaded. Appeal Br. 11-16. Specifically,
Appellants argue Gaither's system and methods involve managing a cache
between a processor and volatile memory that is on the same machine as the
processor such that Gaither' s teachings are limited to data retrieved from
memory through hardwired circuitry that can provide data access speeds
much greater than those provided by the persistent memory in Mark's
system. Appeal Br. 13-15; Reply Br. 5. Appellants contend Gaither's
caching architecture (between a processor and its main memory) "requires a
hardwired solution" to achieve the speeds required by its cache application,
and Appellants further contend such a solution requires speeds that "are
orders of magnitude" different from the slower speeds required by Mark's
cache application in a storage system. Appeal Br. 14--15.
4
Appeal2017-004634
Application 12/691,146
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 would have been obvious in
view of Mark combined with Gaither' s general teachings of improved data
access speeds from bypassing an overloaded cache. Contrary to Appellants'
arguments, the Examiner's proposed combination does not require bodily
incorporation of Gaither's system (a hardwired, high speed, cache controller)
with Mark's and instead relies on Gaither for its general teachings regarding
bypassing an overloaded cache. Among other things, Gaither teaches that
"[g]enerally, once the cache activity information or statistics reach some
predetermined level, the control module 314 may deduce that an overload
condition of the cache memory 308 does or will exist, and that one or more
incoming requests should bypass the cache memory 308 at that point."
Gaither ,r 20; accord id. ,r 2 ( describing different types of processor
workloads and cache designs; recognizing that an overloaded cache can
lengthen memory access latency and become a hindrance to a computer
system's performance).
Further, contrary to Appellants' arguments that "there is no reason
one skilled in the art would conclude that 'if the [intermediate] cache is
overloaded, it would be faster to get the data from the disk directly"' (Reply
Br. 3), Appellants' Specification states just that: "When cache 406 is
overloaded, it is more efficient to retrieve items from primary storage on
disk 112 even though the items are cached in storage-side intermediate cache
406." Spec. ,r 96; see Appeal Br. 3 (citing ,r,r 96, 97, 103 as support for the
disputed limitation). Appellants' Specification does not describe a
technological advance or otherwise provide technical details that would not
have been available to a person of ordinary skill reading Gaither and Mark.
To the contrary, the lack of such details in Appellants' Specification
5
Appeal2017-004634
Application 12/691,146
evidences that a person of ordinary skill would in fact have understood the
benefits of bypassing an overloaded cache to retrieve items from persistent
storage to implement the teachings of Gaither with the system of Mark. See
In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("the Board's observation
that appellant did not provide the type of detail in his specification that he
now argues is necessary in prior art references supports the Board's finding
that one skilled in the art would have known how to implement the features
of the references and would have concluded that the reference disclosures
would have been enabling").
Accordingly, we disagree with Appellants and are unpersuaded that
the Examiner erred in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3
For dependent claims 2 and 3, Appellants rely on the same arguments
advanced for claim 1. Appeal Br. 18-19. For the same reasons discussed
above, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claims
2 and 3.
Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites
"wherein the first set of items are retrieved from primary storage
concurrently with the second set of items being retrieved from the
intermediate cache." The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the benefits of
retrieving two items concurrently, as opposed to serially, was within the
knowledge of a person of ordinary skill at the time of Appellants' invention
6
Appeal2017-004634
Application 12/691,146
and suggested by Gaither to yield the predictable result of reducing the time
required to retrieve both items. Final Act. 7; see Ans. 6.
In addition to the arguments advanced for claim 1, Appellants argue
that Gaither' s descriptions of the needs to improve speeds does not teach or
suggest concurrently retrieving items from both an intermediate cache and a
primary storage. Appeal Br. 19. Responding to the Examiner's finding that
concurrent retrieval was not novel, Appellants argue that "[t]he inventive
concept [ of claim 4] is in developing the technology to make the concurrent
performance occur." Reply Br. 5; see Appeal Br. 19 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 110-
115 a support for the claimed concurrent retrieval).
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, though, Appellants' Specification
does not provide details of or reflect an inventive technological development
that makes concurrent performance occur. Cf Spec. ,r,r 110-113 ( describing
without detail "[ t ]he ability to concurrently scan from both the intermediate
cache 406 ... and the hard disk"). As cited by the Examiner, Gaither
teaches or at least reasonably suggests concurrent retrieval of items with its
teachings that, for example, "memory requests for data within a certain
range are serviced by the cache memory 308, while others bypass the cache
memory ... directly to the main memory." Gaither ,r,r 27-28 (additionally
describing multiprocessor systems such as a symmetric multi-processor
system). Gaither explains that in "bypass mode," the cache controller
reduces the workload of the cache memory so that performance does not
decrease below a performance level associated with a system not
implementing a cache, at least suggesting that the cache continues to process
read requests from its queue while at the same time, other memory requests
bypass the cache. Gaither ,r 28.
7
Appeal2017-004634
Application 12/691,146
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in the
rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5-11
For each of independent claims 5 and 8 and dependent claims 6, 7,
and 9-11 ( dependent from claims 5 and 8, respectively), Appellants rely on
the same arguments advanced for claim 1. Appeal Br. 20-21. For the same
reasons discussed above, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in the
rejection of claims 5-11.
Claims 12-16
Dependent claim 12 depends indirectly on claim 8 and requires that
the storage system applies filter criteria provided by the database server to
items involved in the scan operation. Dependent claims 13-16 depend from
claim 8 and require using certain factors to determine whether to service an
I/0 request with a copy of a requested item that resides in intermediate. For
claim 13, the factor is an identity of the user for whom the I/0 request was
submitted. For claim 14, the factor is an identity of a service that submitted
the I/0 request. For claim 15, the factor is an indication of a consumer
group to which the I/0 request maps. And for claim 16, the factor is
whether the I/0 request is associated with an offloader filter provided by the
database server to the storage system.
In addition to Mark and Gaither, the Examiner cites Blumenau for its
disclosures of the use of filter criteria. Final Act. 7-9. Specifically, the
Examiner finds that Blumenau discloses use of a host device ID to determine
whether to service a request as part of a system intended to prevent
8
Appeal2017-004634
Application 12/691,146
unauthorized access to certain information. Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 8.
Appellants argue that Blumenau teaches using the device ID to determine
whose requests will be served, not for filtering the requested data before
sending the data to the database server. Reply Br. 6-7; see Appeal Br. 21-
22.
Although we agree with the Examiner that applying filter criteria is
generally known, we agree with Appellants that Blumenau does not teach or
suggest applying filter criteria "to items involved in the scan operation," as
claimed. Consistent with the plain language of claim 12, Appellants'
Specification explains that requests to retrieve items are often accompanied
by filter criteria and that only items satisfying the filter criteria are needed to
satisfy the request. Spec. ,r,r 106-107. In contrast, the cited portions of
Blumenau relate to using a host ID to "selectively service the host's
requests" by determining whether the requested data is accessible to the host
or if the request should be denied. Blumenau ,r 34. In other words,
Blumenau teaches using the host ID to filter requests; Blumenau does not
teach applying "host ID" as a filter criteria to items involved in the scan
operation ( e.g., to filter a set of data and to only return the data that satisfies
the "host ID" criteria). Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 12.
We similarly agree with Appellants that Blumenau's disclosures of
using a host ID to selectively service the host's requests do not teach or
reasonably suggest using the factors required in claims 13-16 to determine
whether to bypass a cache. See Appeal Br. 22-23. Contrary to the
Examiner's reasoning that Blumenau teaches using the host ID to prioritize
users (Ans. 9-10), Blumenau teaches using the host ID to allow or deny
9
Appeal2017-004634
Application 12/691,146
access to data, not as part of a determination regarding bypassing a cache to
retrieve the data from a persistent storage based on the host ID or similar
factors, as claimed.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in the
rejection of claims 13-16.
Claims 17-20
Independent claim 1 7 recites a method that includes the steps of
receiving an I/0 request for an item that resides on primary storage but not
in an intermediate cache and, in response, storing a copy of the item in the
intermediate cache responsive to (a) "an identity of the user for whom the
I/0 request was submitted belonging to a particular set of user identities,"
(b) "an identity of a service that submitted the I/0 request belonging to a
particular set of service identities," or ( c) "an indication of a consumer group
to which the I/0 request maps indicating that the consumer group belongs to
a particular set of service groups." The Examiner finds that Liu teaches or
suggests the storing step of claim 17 with its disclosures of a "data-aware
cache" system that determines whether to store data in a cache "based on
data access characteristics, state of the cache or other factors." Final Act.
12-15 (quoting Liu ,r 108). Further, the Examiner states that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art "to use the identity of the
user, for example, in the determination of whether to cache certain data
because the identity of the user (host) could instantly indicate the privilege
level of the host or the priority of the host." Ans. 11-12.
Although we agree with the Examiner that Liu generally teaches
determining whether to store data to a cache based on policies set by users
10
Appeal2017-004634
Application 12/691,146
relating to the type of data requested, the state of the cache, and the state of
other I/0 components, and "other factors" (see Liu ,r,r 5-7, 64, 108), Liu
does not teach using factors such as the identity of the user, service, or group
requesting the data. Notably, referring to the recited factors as "logical
characteristics," Appellants' Specification distinguishes the claimed factors
from "physical characteristics" such as the location of the data targeted or
the amount of data involved in the I/0 request. Spec. ,r 55. Liu's
identification of factors such as the type of data requested (Liu ,r 5) and other
characteristics about the data itself (Liu's claim 13) may suggest such
"physical characteristics," but the record lacks evidence of using logical
factors such as those recited in claims 1 7 in the determination of whether to
store data in an intermediate cache when it is being retrieved from persistent
storage (see Appeal Br. 27-28).
On the record before us, we agree with Appellants that the record
lacks evidence to support the Examiner's findings and conclusions that the
recited factors would have been obvious in view of the combination of Liu,
Gaither, and Blumenau. See In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (finding conclusory statements regarding what would have been
obvious are inadequate to support the conclusion of obviousness).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 17, nor the rejection of claims 18-20 which depend from claim 17.
Claims 22-25
For independent claim 22, Appellants rely on the same arguments
advanced for claim 8, which are the same arguments advanced for claim 1.
Appeal Br. 30. Similarly, for each of dependent claims 23-25 (dependent
11
Appeal2017-004634
Application 12/691,146
from claim 22), Appellants rely on the arguments advanced for claim 22.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1, we are
unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claims 22-25.
Claims 26-30
Dependent claims 26-30, dependent directly or indirectly from claim
22, include limitations substantially similar to those of claims 12-16
discussed above, and Appellants rely on the same arguments advanced for
claims 12-16. Appeal Br. 31-22. For the same reasons discussed above
regarding claims 12-16, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of
claims 2 6-3 0.
Claim 31
For independent claim 31, Appellants rely on the same arguments
advanced regarding claim 17. Appeal Br. 32. For the reasons discussed
above regarding claim 17, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 31.
Claim 32
Appellants state that independent claim 32 mirrors claim 1 in relevant
part, and Appellants rely on the same arguments advanced regarding claim
1. Appeal Br. 32. For the reasons discussed above regarding claim 1, we
are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 32.
12
Appeal2017-004634
Application 12/691,146
Claim 33
Claim 33 depends from claim 1, and Appellants rely on the same
arguments advanced regarding claim 1. Appeal Br. 32-33. For the reasons
discussed above regarding claim 1, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner
erred in the rejection of claim 33.
Claim 34
Appellants do not separately address claim 36, which depends from
claim 5. For the reasons discussed above regarding claim 5, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 36.
Claim 35
Claim 35 depends from claim 9, which depends from claim 8, and
Appellants rely on the same arguments advanced regarding claim 1. Appeal
Br. 33. For the reasons discussed above regarding claim 1, we are
unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 35.
Claim 36
Appellants do not separately address claim 36, which depends
indirectly from claim 22. For the reasons discussed above regarding claim
22, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 36.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11, 22-25, and 32-
36.
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 12-20 and 26-31.
13
Appeal2017-004634
Application 12/691,146
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
14