Pure Storage, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2021

2020000672 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2021)

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.
15/966,024 04/30/2018 RONALD KARR 3332US01 9828
130608 7590 05/13/2021
Pure Storage, Inc.
c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP
797 Sam Bass Road #2559
ROUND ROCK, TX 78681
EXAMINER
CARDWELL, ERIC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2139
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2021 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
kate@klspatents.com
office@klspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD KARR,
CONSTANTINE SAPUNTZAKIS, and
JOHN COLGROVE
Appeal 2020-000672
Application 15/966,024
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Pure Storage.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000672
Application 15/966,024
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method of staging data within a unified
storage element of a secondary storage system. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of staging data, the method comprising:

receiving, in a storage system at a storage element
integrating fast durable storage and bulk durable storage, a data
storage operation from a host computer;

storing data corresponding to the data storage operation
within fast durable storage in accordance with a first data
resiliency technique; and

responsive to detecting a condition for transferring data
between fast durable storage and bulk durable storage,
transferring the data from fast durable storage to bulk durable
storage in accordance with a second data resiliency technique.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Siewert et al. US 2010/0199036 A1 Aug. 5, 2010
Cho US 2011/0307652 A1 Dec. 15, 2011
Omizo et al. US 2013/0198437 A1 Aug. 1, 2013
Verma et al. US 2016/0080490 A1 Mar. 17, 2016

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4–11, 13–16, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Omizo and Verma. Final Act. 3.
Claims 2, 3, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Omizo, Verma, and Siewert. Final Act. 9.
Appeal 2020-000672
Application 15/966,024
3
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Omizo, Verma, and Cho. Final Act. 10.

OPINION
Claims 1, 4–11, 13–16, and 18–20
With respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 16, Appellant does not
present separate arguments for patentability of the claims. Appeal Br. 6.
Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim and
will address Appellant’s arguments thereto. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Therefore, claims 4–11, 13–16, and 18–20 will stand or fall with
representative independent claim 1. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant argues that the Omizo reference actually teaches a device
that operates as main memory for a processor rather than a storage system.
Appeal Br. 6. Appellant further argues that the two types of systems,
memory and storage, are vastly different even while having some similarities
because the two systems are so different that, in conventional computer
systems, the two systems operate with different communication protocols,
contain different types of hardware, are accessed and treated differently by
operating systems and applications. Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant also argues
that a person of skill in the art will immediately recognize that main memory
and storage systems are distinct. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that
Omizo's entire disclosure is concerned with main memory, not a storage
system where the claims are directed to a “storage” system and “storage”
elements within that system. Appeal Br. 7.
Appeal 2020-000672
Application 15/966,024
4
Appellant’s Reply Brief sets forth the same arguments as set forth in
the Appeal Brief and responds to the Examiner’s finding that memory and
storage are “synonymous.” Reply Br. 8–9; see Ans. 3. Appellant generally
contends that equating memory and storage is incorrect because “storage”
generally refers to a thing that holds data for a longer term than “memory.”
Reply Br. 8. Appellant also generally contends that “memory is generally
volatile - losing the held data after a loss of power - while storage retains the
held data.” Reply Br. 8.
The Examiner finds that the Omizo reference teaches two types of
memory in a storage system, including volatile (fast durable storage) and
non-volatile (bulk durable storage) memory devices. Final Act. 3–4.
The Examiner additionally identifies portions of Appellant’s
Specification which uses the terms storage and memory interchangeably.
Ans. 4. Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s references to
Appellant’s Specification in the Reply Brief. Reply Br. 8–9.
Appellant further contends that the Omizo reference indicates that
main memory is volatile and the present application sets forth that storage
systems comprise non-volatile storage. Reply Br. 9. We find that
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the language of
independent claim 1 where volatile and non-volatile are not expressly recited
in the language of the claim. Moreover, Appellant’s arguments to
“secondary” storage is also not commensurate in scope with the language of
the claims.2 Arguments must be commensurate in scope with the actual

2 Additionally, we note that the Verma reference discloses both computer
memory and computer storage systems (SANs, RAIDs) along with data
migration between a first and a second storage systems. Verma ¶ 30. The
Verma reference further discloses migration of data from different portions
Appeal 2020-000672
Application 15/966,024
5
claim language. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982); see In re
Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts
. . . are not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore
unpersuasive.”).
For the reasons discussed above, and on this record, we find a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual
findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness regarding the
invention recited in representative independent claim 1.

Claims 2, 3, 12, and 17
Appellant argues that the Siewert and Cho references do not cure the
deficiencies in combination of the Omizo and Verma references. Appeal Br.
8. As a result, Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for
patentability of these claims and relies upon the arguments made with
respect to representative independent claim 1. Because we found no error in
the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of
representative independent claim 1, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 2, 3, 12, and 17 for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is AFFIRMED.

of storage disks to the outer edge of the hard drive which spins faster for
quicker reads and writes. Verma ¶¶ 47–49. The Verma reference also
discloses various types of non-volatile storage. Verma ¶ 51.

Appeal 2020-000672
Application 15/966,024
6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–11, 13–
16, 18–20
103 Omizo, Verma 1, 4–11, 13–
16, 18–20

2, 3, 17 103 Omizo, Verma,
Siewert
2, 3, 17
12 103 Omizo, Verma,
Cho
12
Overall
Outcome
1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED