Ex parte ANDREWS

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 7, 1998

08579314 (B.P.A.I. May. 7, 1998)

Application for patent filed December 27, 1995. 1
According to appellant, this application is a continuation of
Application 08/404,941, filed March 15, 1995, now U.S. Patent
5,590,276, issued December 31, 1996; which is a continuation
of Application 07/818,039, filed January 8, 1992.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte ANTHONY D. ANDREWS
__________
Appeal No. 97-4408
Application 08/579,3141
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before THOMAS, KRASS, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 97-4408
Application No. 08/579,314
2
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 18 through 39, all of the claims pending in the
application.
The invention pertains to failure-tolerant data storage
systems. More particularly, the invention employs data
storage units divided into logical groups with each group
including a reserved area for storing system information and
including an update table that contains various values
indicative of which logical groups of disk drives were being
synchronized when a power failure occurred.
Representative independent claim 18 is reproduced as
follows:
18. A redundant storage array system comprising:
a) a plurality of failure-independent data storage
units divided into at least two logical groups, more than
one of said data storage units in each logical group
including a reserved area for storing at least
system information, and including an update table for
storing at least a first value for indicating an
interruption in a process for updating and synchronizing the
reserved areas of the data storage units of the logical
groups;
b) a controller for completely updating the reserved
areas in a current logical group including said first
value for indicating an interruption in a process before
any updating may commence on the reserved areas within a
next logical group to ensure that the reserved areas of
either said current logical group or said next logical
Appeal No. 97-4408
Application No. 08/579,314
Since this application has now matured into U.S. Patent2
No.5,590,276, it would appear that the double patenting
rejection is no longer “provisional,” in nature.
3
group may be used as a reference to update and synchronize
the reserved areas in data storage units of another logical
group, based upon said first values of said current and next
logical groups.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Katz et al. 5,195,100 Mar. 16, 1993
(Katz) (filed Mar. 2, 1990)
Williams (EP) 482,853 A2 Apr. 29, 1992
(filed Oct. 18, 1991)
Claims 18 through 39 stand provisionally rejected under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as unpatentable over claims 1 through 10 and 18 of
copending application Serial No. 08/404,941.2
Claims 18 through 22, 28 through 33 and 39 stand further
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Katz in
view of Williams.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
Appeal No. 97-4408
Application No. 08/579,314
The rejection can be obviated by the filing of a proper3
terminal disclaimer which appellant has offered to file upon
allowance of the application [see page 10 of Paper No. 8,
filed January 14, 1997].
4
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 18 through 39
under the obviousness-type double patenting doctrine, we will
summarily sustain this rejection since no substantive
arguments thereagainst are offered by appellant.3
We now turn to the rejection of claims 18 through 22, 28
through 33 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Katz discloses a redundant storage array that stores
update data in order to determine the point at which an
interrupt occurred. However, as recognized by the examiner,
Katz does not disclose an update table for each reserved area.
Instead, Katz employs a single non-volatile memory 413 which
stores a time stamp used for recovery of data after power
restoration. In our view, it would have been equally obvious
to store such update information (and the time stamp
information of Katz would clearly constitute “update”
information) in either a single, common non-volatile memory,
Appeal No. 97-4408
Application No. 08/579,314
5
as in Katz, or in the reserved area of each data storage unit.
As pointed out by the examiner, at page 5 of the answer, page
3, lines 4-15 of the instant specification, in describing the
prior art, recites that it was well known to allocate reserved
areas in each data storage unit to store system configuration
information. Thus, artisans would have been well aware of the
capability to store various types of system information,
including time stamp, or other kinds of update information, in
these reserved areas.
With regard to the feature of updating the reserved area
for each logical group before updating the reserved area for
the next logical group, we agree with the examiner that the
explicit teaching of Williams of updating “serially, thereby
protecting against all volumes becoming corrupted at once”
[Williams abstract] would have made this feature obvious to
employ in Katz for the stated purpose set forth in Williams.
If updates were performed simultaneously, i.e., in parallel,
rather than serially, a power interruption would make it
difficult, if not impossible, to resurrect the data in storage
just prior to power interruption.
Appeal No. 97-4408
Application No. 08/579,314
6
Based on the problems recognized by the prior art, as
recited in the background section of the instant
specification, common sense would have motivated the artisan
with a reason for providing a serial update in each data
storage unit so that in case of a power interruption, data
recovery may be had by reference to those units which had not
yet been updated. The examiner has merely buttressed this
reasoning by offering Williams as evidence of such a common
sense approach.
While appellant states that “both Katz and Williams uses
[sic, use] time-stamp-comparison as a basis for a recovery
process” [brief-page 18, emphasis in the original], and argues
[brief-page 21] that the artisan reading Katz and Williams
would not come away “with any other teaching than the use of
time stamp comparison to determine how to recover from a power
failure,” appellant never explains why such a time stamp
comparison is not an “update table,” as broadly claimed.
After all, both the time stamp information of the prior art
and appellant’s “update table” contain information therein
which will permit data recovery after a power interruption.
Appeal No. 97-4408
Application No. 08/579,314
7
Appellant argues, at page 21 of the brief, that the flag
field of Katz “is not at all related to appellant’s use [of] a
reserved area and its flag field...wherein the value within
the total of appellant’s flag field at the time of a power
interruption is unique to the state of the
updating/synchronizing process when power interruption
occurred.” Yet, appellant never points out why the two flag
fields are “not at all related.” Further, while appellant’s
flag field may, in fact, be “unique” to the state of the
process, it is unclear where, in the instant claims, such
“uniqueness” is recited.
Appellant argues that the examiner has employed
impermissible hindsight [brief-page 22] and fails to find any
suggestion to modify Katz in order “to store appellant’s
write-data-update flag, having appellant’s unique values, in
appellant’s reserved-area.” Again, we find nothing in the
instant claims, subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
reciting anything about a flag having unique values. The
claims reciting such specifics, claims 23-27 and 34-38, have
been indicated by the examiner as patentable insofar as 35
U.S.C.
Appeal No. 97-4408
Application No. 08/579,314
8
§ 103 is concerned.
It is our view that the examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of
instant claims 18 through 22, 28 through 33 and 39 and
appellant has not convinced us of any error therein.
Arguments that there are differences (e.g., time stamp
comparisons rather than update tables), per se, are
unpersuasive of nonobviousness without some convincing line of
reasoning to overcome the examiner’s prima facie case (e.g.,
that the time stamp and update table are both, broadly, update
tables). Similarly, arguments directed to limitations not
appearing in the claims under rejection are unpersuasive. The
examiner has apparently recognized that the instant invention
differs from that disclosed by the prior art and, wherein
patentably distinct limitations are included, the examiner has
not rejected those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, the
examiner views, as do we, the claims under rejection based on
that statutory section as being overly broad in view of the
applied references.
We have sustained both the rejection of claims 18 through
39 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting and
Appeal No. 97-4408
Application No. 08/579,314
9
the rejection of claims 18 through 22, 28 through 33 and 39
under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
Appeal No. 97-4408
Application No. 08/579,314
10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under
37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Errol A. Krass ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Michael R. Fleming )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-4408
Application No. 08/579,314
11
William J. Kubida
Holland and Hart
555 Seventeenth Street, Ste. 3200
P.O. Box 8749
Denver, CO 80201