Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2015

12687361 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/687,361 01114/2010 Eric A. Anderson
56436 7590 12/31/2015
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82259654 1400
EXAMINER
WILCOX, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2494
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2015 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC A. ANDERSON, XIAOZHOU LI,
MEHUL A. SHAH, and JOHN J. WYLIE
Appeal2013-010042
Application 12/687 ,361
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, 16, 17, and
19-25. Claims 4, 11, 15, and 18 have been canceled. (App. Br. 1.) 1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed January 14, 2010;
Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed February 21, 2013; and Reply Brief ("Reply
Br.") filed August 6, 2013. We also refer to the Examiner's Answer
("Ans.") mailed June 6, 2013, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection)
("Final Act.") mailed September 26, 2012.
Appeal2013-010042
Application 12/687,361
Appellants 'Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns data storage systems and
methods for scrubbing information stored in a data storage system. The
method maintains metadata entries on a first storage device and data values
on a second storage device. The metadata entries stored on the first storage
device correspond to data values stored on the second storage device as
encoded fragments in an At Maximum Redundancy (AMR) state. The
method verifies that the encoded fragments (which correspond to a particular
metadata entry) are stored on the second device and also verifies that a
corresponding metadata entry is stored on the first storage device for each of
the encoded fragments (stored on the second storage device). (Spec. i-fi-12,
73; Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method of scrubbing information stored in a data
storage system, comprising:
maintaining on a first storage device a list of metadata
entries corresponding to values that are stored in the data
storage system at an At Maximum Redundancy (AMR) state,
where each of the values is divided into encoded fragments;
verifj;ing that the encoded fragments corresponding to
each of the metadata entries are stored on a second storage
device;
verifj;ing that a corresponding metadata entry is stored
on the first storage device for each of the encoded fragments
that are stored on the second storage device; and
2
Appeal2013-010042
Application 12/687,361
scheduling for recovery any missing encoded fragments
and/or any missing metadata entry.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 6, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belluomini (US
7,873,878 B2, iss. Jan. 18, 2011 (filed Sept. 24, 2007)), Follis (US
2010/0037056 Al, pub. Feb. 11, 2010 (filed Aug. 7, 2009)), and Meng (US
8,006,125 Bl, iss. Aug. 23, 2011 (filed Apr. 29, 2005)).
2. The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Belluomini, Follis, Meng, and Forrer (US 2006/0075288
Al, pub. Apr. 6, 2006).
3. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Belluomini, Follis, Meng, and Ng (US 5,278,838, iss. Jan.
11, 1994).
4. The Examiner rejects claims 7-9 and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belluomini and Meng.
5. The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Belluomini, Meng, and Follis.
6. The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Belluomini, Meng, and Ng.
7. The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 10 3 (a) as
being unpatentable over Belluomini, Meng, and Forrer.
8. The Examiner rejects claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belluomini, Follis, Meng, and Forrer.
9. The Examiner rejects claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Belluomini, Meng, and Follis.
3
Appeal2013-010042
Application 12/687,361
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants'
contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in concluding that Belluomini, Follis, and
Meng would have collectively taught or suggested "verifying that the
encoded fragments corresponding to each of the metadata entries are stored
on a second storage device" and "verifying that a corresponding metadata
entry is stored on the first storage device for each of the encoded fragments
that are stored on the second storage device" (hereinafter "disputed
limitations") within the meaning of Appellants' claim 1 and the
commensurate limitations of claim 14?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner provides the same basis for rejecting both independent
claims 1 and 14 (Final Act. 2-5, 8-12; Ans. 3-8), and rejects representative
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Belluomini,
Follis, and Meng. (Final Act. 2-5.) Appellants contend that Belluomini
does not teach or suggest the disputed features of representative claim 1.
(App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 1--4.) Specifically, Appellants contend, inter alia,
that "Belluomini does not provide any teaching or hint of the two 'verifying'
tasks recited in claim 1" and "the checking performed in Belluomini where
VMDs (meta data) stored in multiple different locations are compared, is
quite different from the subject matter of claim 1." (App. Br. 7 .) Appellants
further contend that "[ c ]omparing VMDs corresponds to comparing
4
Appeal2013-010042
Application 12/687,361
metadata, which is completely different from verifying that the encoded
fragments corresponding to each of the metadata entries on the first storage
device are stored on the second storage device ... " (App. Br. 8.)
We agree with Appellants that Belluomini does not teach the recited
"cross-check" (cross-verifying (see App. Br. 8)) and, in particular, does not
verify that data (encoded fragments), which correspond to each metadata
entry stored on a separate (first) storage device, are stored on a second
storage device. We find, as did the Examiner (Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 2--4, 39--
40), that Belluomini describes verifying metadata entries are stored on a first
storage device and that the metadata entries correspond to data (encoded
fragments) (which are stored on a separate ("second") storage device). (See
Belluomini Abstract; col. 12, 11. 3-27; Fig. 2.) The metadata (VMD 0_7)
corresponding to the chunk of data (C 0_7) is stored on a separate storage
device (LLNVSO) (see Belluomini Fig. 2). The checker (134) checks to
verify that the VMDs (stored in the appendix and the LLNVS) are consistent
(Belluomini col. 12, 11. 5-7). We agree with Appellants, however, that
Belluomini does not teach the other half of the recited cross-verification
(first verifying step). (See App. Br. 8-10.) The Examiner has not
sufficiently shown (Ans. 3-8; Final Act. 3, 39--41), nor do we find, that
Belluomini teaches the disputed claim limitations. In particular, the
Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence showing how the cited
portions of Belluomini (id.) teach verifying that data (encoded fragments),
which correspond to each of the metadata entries stored on a separate (first)
storage device, are stored on a second storage device (see App. Br. 8-10).
The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how Belluomini verifies both the
metadata (associated with stored data) and the stored data itself.
5
Appeal2013-010042
Application 12/687,361
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in concluding Belluomini (in combination with Follis
and Meng) teaches the disputed limitations of Appellants' claim 1.
Independent claim 14 includes limitations of commensurate scope. Claims
3, 6, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 25 depend on claims 1 and 14, respectively.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1,
3, 6, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 25.
With respect to the obviousness rejections of independent claim 7 and
dependent claims 2, 5, 8-10, 12, 13, 19, 20, 23 and 24, rejected as obvious
over Belluomini as well as Follis, Meng, Forrer, and/or Ng, we reverse the
Examiner's obviousness rejections for the same reasons set forth with
respect to claim 1 (supra). The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how
Belluomini verifies data (encoded fragments) are stored on a first storage
node (claim 7) (see Ans. 22-24; Final Act. 21-24).
Accordingly, we agree that the Examiner erred, as the analysis in the
Examiner's rejection is not sufficient to show that claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-14,
16, 17, and 19-25 are unpatentable without further explanation.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-
3, 5-10, 12-14, 16, 17, and 19-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, 16,
17, and 19-25.
6
Appeal2013-010042
Application 12/687,361
dw
REVERSED
7