International Business Machines CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 27, 20212019005126 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/848,137 12/20/2017 Jason K. Resch CS01629 5583 89322 7590 04/27/2021 Garlick & Markison (PST) 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000 Austin, TX 78701 EXAMINER TSAI, SHENG JEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2136 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/27/2021 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): MMURDOCK@TEXASPATENTS.COM bpierotti@texaspatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JASON K. RESCH, WESLEY B. LEGGETTE, RAVI V. KHADIWALA, RANDY DEAN PFEIFER, BRUNO HENNIG CABRAL, ILYA VOLVOVSKI, and JOSEPH M. KACZMAREK ____________________ Appeal 2019-005126 Application 15/848,1371 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, JON M. JURGOVAN, and JOHN E. SCHNEIDER, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed December 20, 2017; the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed October 12, 2018; the Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.”) mailed December 20, 2018; the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed March 4, 2019; the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed April 17, 2019; and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June 17, 2019. Appeal 2019-005126 Application 15/848,137 2 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims relate to a processing module determining a level of access requests in a dispersed storage network (DSN). Spec. Abstract. When the level of access requests exceeds a predetermined threshold, the processing module transitions from first to second (i.e., overdrive) operational mode. Id. When the level of access requests is below the predetermined threshold, the processing module transitions back to the first operational mode. Id. Claims 1, 11, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is directed to a method; claim 11 to a computer readable storage medium; and claim 19 to a computing device. Claims 2 to 10 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claims 12 to 18 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 11. Claims 20 depends directly from claim 19. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter. Argued claim limitations are shown in underline: 1. A method for execution by one or more processing modules of one or more computing devices of a dispersed storage network (DSN), the method comprises: receiving, by the one or more processing modules, an access request for a set of encoded data slices (EDSs), wherein a data segment is encoded using an error coding dispersal storage function to produce the set of EDSs, determining, by the one or more processing modules, whether a level of access requests for the DSN meets a predetermined threshold; in response to determining that the level of access requests for the DSN meets the predetermined threshold, transitioning, by the one or more processing modules, from a first operational mode to a second operational mode; determining, by the one or more processing modules, whether the level of access requests for the DSN is below the predetermined threshold; and Appeal 2019-005126 Application 15/848,137 3 in response to determining that the level of access requests for the DSN is below the predetermined threshold, transitioning, by the one or more processing modules, from the second operational mode to the first operational mode. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS3 Claims 1–4, 6, 9, 11–14, 16–17, and 19–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Motwani (US 2012/0117351 A1, published May 10, 2012) and Watanabe (US 2013/0073820 A1, published March 21, 2013). Final Act. 12–25. Claims 5, 7, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Motwani, Watanabe, and Byom (US 2011/0235434 A1, published September 29, 2011). Final Act. 25–29. ANALYSIS Standard of Review We undertake a limited de novo review of the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). 3 The Examiner withdrew the rejections of claims 10 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 112(b), and claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Final Act. 2; Adv. Act. 1. Accordingly, we do not address these rejections further. Appeal 2019-005126 Application 15/848,137 4 § 103 Rejection A. Legal Principles Concerning Obviousness Title 35, section 103, provides A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) where present, objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). B. Claims 1–4, 6, 9, 11–14, 16–17, and 19–20 Appellant argues claims 1–4, 6, 9, 11–14, 16–17, and 19–20 together as one group. See Appeal Br. 4–7. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the argued group of claims and unless otherwise indicated will restrict our analysis to this claim only. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone.”). The Examiner’s rejection relies on each of Motwani and Watanabe as teaching the argued language of claim 1 shown in emphasis above. Final Appeal 2019-005126 Application 15/848,137 5 Act. 13–18 (citing Motwani ¶¶ 55, 120–23; Watanabe ¶ 13, Figs. 7A–D). We analyze the teachings of Motwani and Watanabe below. 1. Motwani Motwani is aimed at load balancing of memory devices in a dispersed storage network (DSN). Motwani, code (57). A processing module migrates encoded data slices between memory devices when an available memory imbalance exists. Id. Motwani teaches that the processing module may determine parameters for storing or retrieving data based on the number of queued write or retrieval requests. Id. ¶¶ 120–123. 2. Watanabe Watanabe addresses processing of write or read commands issued during data migration processing. Watanabe, code (57). Watanabe teaches that a copy control part selects an asynchronous copy process when the number of write accesses is equal to or less than a prescribed access threshold, and a synchronous copy process when the number of write access exceeds the prescribed access threshold. Id. ¶¶ 13, 47. 3. Appellant’s Argument Appellant argues that “the singular issue on appeal is whether the hypothetical combination of Motwani and Watanabe teach (in response to an access request) determining a level of access requests for the DSN.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues Motwani or Watanabe teach movement of data between memory elements, but that neither reference determines the access requests for an entire network. Appeal Br. 6. 4. Analysis Appellant’s argument assumes that “determining a level of access requests for the DSN” in claim 1 is for all access requests occurring in the Appeal 2019-005126 Application 15/848,137 6 entire DSN network. Appeal Br. 6. Claim 1, however, does not recite that the access requests are for an entire network, nor does it recite that the access requests are between multiple modules and devices in the DSN. Consequently, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim as recited. Limitations not appearing in the claim cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). “[T]he PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner finds that any access request occurring in a DSN is an access request “for the DSN.” Adv. Act. 1. In other words, any access request concerns, relates to, or serves the purpose of, the DSN.4 Under broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, access requests “for the DSN” may be carried out by a single processing module of a single computing device moving data between memory elements. In this scenario, the recited “determining [a] level of access requests for the DSN” in claim 1 reads on Motwani’s processing module determining the number of write or read requests (¶¶ 120, 123), and on Watanabe’s copy control part determining whether a number of write accesses is equal to or less than, or exceeds, a prescribed access threshold (¶¶ 13, 47). To summarize, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that claim 1 determines a level of accesses requests for the entire DSN, as this is not recited in the claim. Nor do we find any language in Motwani or Watanabe that precludes determining the number of requests or accesses for an entire DSN. Furthermore, the Examiner finds that any access request is 4 See Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary, definition of “for” 1a–c (purpose, goal, or object) and 7 (concerning) (last viewed Apr. 19, 2021). Appeal 2019-005126 Application 15/848,137 7 “for the DSN” so Motwani’s and Watanabe’s mention of a module or device determining the number of access requests teaches the argued claim limitation. Appellant does not show error in these findings. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. C. Claims 5, 7, and 15 No separate arguments were presented for claims 5, 7, and 15. Appeal Br. 7–8. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the reasons stated above. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–7, 9, 11–17, and 19–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6, 9, 11–14, 16– 17, 19–20 103 Motwani, Watanabe 1–4, 6, 9, 11–14, 16– 17, 19–20 5, 7, 15 103 Motwani, Watanabe, Byom 5, 7, 15 Overall Outcome 1–7, 9, 11– 17, 19–20 AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation