Ganesh Balakrishnan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2020

13525017 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/525,017 06/15/2012 Ganesh Balakrishnan XRPS920110092-US-CNT 2997
127893 7590 03/30/2020
Streets Lawfirm, PC - Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
20319 Corbin Creek Drive
Cypress, TX 77433
EXAMINER
RIGOL, YAIMA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2135
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2020 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):
jstreets@streetsiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GANESH BALAKRISHNAN and ANIL KRISHNA
____________

Appeal 2018-005239
Application 13/525,017
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and NORMAN
H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1–3. Claims 4–9 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction
over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Lenovo Enterprise Solutions
(Singapore) PTE. Limited as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2018-005239
Application 13/525,017

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to flash
memory device write-access management among different virtual machines
(VMs) in a virtualized computing environment. (Abstr.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A flash memory device write-access management
method for different virtual machines (VMs) in a virtualized
computing environment, the method comprising:
computing a contemporaneous bandwidth of requests for
write operations for a flash memory device;
allocating a corresponding number of tokens to virtual
machines (VMs) in a virtualized computing environment
seeking write access to the flash memory device, the number of
tokens corresponding to a number of the requests for the write
operations;
accepting write requests to the flash memory device from
VMs only when a requesting one of the VMs sends a write
request to the flash memory accompanied by a token; and,
repeating the computing, allocating and accepting after a
lapse of a predetermined time period.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jnagal et al. (US 7,711,789 B1, issued May 4, 2010),
Bahar et al. (US 2007/0022129 A1, pub. Jan. 25, 2007), and Donaghey et al.
(US 2012/0036239 A1, pub. Feb. 9, 2012). (Final Act. 3–6.)

Appeal 2018-005239
Application 13/525,017

3
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Jnagal,
Bahar, and Donaghey teaches or suggests the independent claim 1
limitations, “the number of tokens corresponding to a number of the requests
for the write operations,” and “accepting write requests to the flash memory
device from VMs only when accompanied by a token.” (Appeal Br. 3–7.)

ANALYSIS
In a previous appeal in this matter, we considered, inter alia, then-
pending claim 1, set forth below:
1. A flash memory device write-access management method for
different virtual machines (VMs) in a virtualized computing
environment, the method comprising:
computing a contemporaneous bandwidth of requests for
write operations for a flash memory device;
allocating a corresponding number of tokens to virtual
machines (VMs) in a virtualized computing environment
seeking write access to the flash memory device;
accepting write requests to the flash memory device from
VMs only when accompanied by a token; and,
repeating the computing, allocating and accepting after a
lapse of a predetermined time period.

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 4, 2017); the Reply Brief
(filed Apr. 20, 2018); the Final Office Action (mailed June 30, 2017); and
the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Feb. 20, 2018) for the respective details.
Appeal 2018-005239
Application 13/525,017

4
(Ex parte Ganesh Balakrishnan, et al, Appeal 2015-004222, p. 2 (PTAB
Sep. 8, 2016) (hereafter, “2016 Decision”).) The prior appeal was from the
Examiner’s rejection of the above claim 1, as well as the other then-pending
claims, as obvious over Jnagal and Zhang et al. (US 8,291,170 B1). (Id.)
In the 2016 Decision, we considered the Examiner’s reliance on
Jnagal for the claim limitation, “accepting write requests to the flash
memory device from VMs only when accompanied by a token.” (2016
Decision, 3.) We agreed with Appellant that the tokens disclosed in Jnagal
do not originate with write commands, as required by the claims, but rather
are periodically allocated by the system. (Id. at 4 (citing Jnagal col. 10, ll.
9–11).) We held that the Examiner did not explain how the use of tokens in
Jnagal taught or suggested the claim requirement that the tokens accompany
the write requests, and therefore did not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection. (Id.)
Subsequently, Appellant amended claim 1 to add to the “allocating”
requirement the additional requirement that “the number of tokens
correspond[] to a number of the requests for the write operations.” (Appeal
Br. 8 (Claims Appendix).) In rejecting the currently pending claims, the
Examiner finds that the combination of Jnagal, Bahar, and Donaghey
teaches or suggests this added limitation:
Jnagal Col: 10 line: 54 to Col: 11 line: 9 teaches having a
sufficient amount of tokens in a token bucket to send write
request. Bahar [0075] and [0080] teaches a token being a lease
for a write operation. Donaghey [0065] and [0091] teaches that
resources are allocated a semaphore (token) and a number of
writes being counted. Collectively each reference uses tokens in
order to complete the task. The number of tokens would be the
Appeal 2018-005239
Application 13/525,017

5
same as the number of write request given that a single token is
allocated per write operation.
Ans. 2.
In addition, for the requirement, “accepting write requests to the flash
memory device from VMs only when accompanied by a token,” the
Examiner relies on the disclosure in Bahar, rather than Jnagal:
Jnagal et al. does not explicitly teach . . . “accepting write
requests to the flash memory device from VMs only when a
requesting one of the VMs sends a write request to the flash
memory accompanied by a token.”
However, Bahar et al. teaches [that requirement.] See Bahar et
al. [0080] and [0167] teachings of a token being generated to
allow access to the volume storage wherein the storage volume
may be a part of a flash memory in a system using virtual
machines.
Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues the references do not teach or suggest “the number
of tokens corresponding to a number of the requests for the write
operations,” and in particular that the disclosure in Donaghey that resources
are allocated a token and the number of writes are counted does not teach or
suggest that requirement — that the Examiner’s rejection is based on a
“presumption of facts not of record.” (Appeal Br. 6.) With respect to the
requirement, “accepting write requests to the flash memory device from
VMs only when accompanied by a token,” Appellant argues that in Bahar,
“the client sends the request but the control node generates the token for the
object storage in the storage node,” and thus the write request is not
accompanied by a token. (Appeal Br. 5–6.)
Appeal 2018-005239
Application 13/525,017

6
In response, the Examiner does not address the argument regarding
the requirement that tokens accompany the write requests, and repeats the
assertion that, in Donaghey, the number of writes are counted, which teaches
that the number of tokens corresponds to the number of requests for write
operations. (Ans. 2.) However, we agree with Appellant that this is an
unwarranted assumption. The Examiner does not sufficiently articulate why
the fact that writes are counted leads to a teaching or suggestion that the
number of token correspond to the number of write requests.
Also, we agree with Appellant that Bahar discloses tokens sent to the
client, but does not teach or suggest that the client them accompanies a write
request with the token.
Accordingly, given the record before us, we are constrained to agree
with Appellant the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, and accordingly do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. We
also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3, which depend from
claim 1.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3 103(a) Jnagal, Bahar,
Donaghey
1–3

REVERSED