Ex Parte Beeson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

14099845 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2017)

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.
14/099,845 12/06/2013 Jesse D. BEESON C67508 1110US.1 3240
142922 7590 11/17/2017
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
GIARDINO JR, MARK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2135
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 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):
IPDocketing @ wbd-u s. com
Mike.Gencarella@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JESSE D. BEESON and JESSE B. YATES
Appeal 2017-005951
Application 14/099,8451
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—12.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants list Pure Storage, Inc., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
2 The Examiner determines claims 13—18 are allowable over the prior art of
record. Final Act. 9. Our decision does not address claims 13—18.
Appeal 2017-005951
Application 14/099,845
Introduction
Appellants describe the invention as relating to “dynamically load
balancing storage media devices based on a mid-range performance level.”
Spec. 2:4—5, Title.
What is absent in the prior art is a system and method that
brings load balancing methodologies typically applied at a
macro level (to networks outside of the storage systems or
compute systems) down to the micro level within the storage
system itself and applie[s it] across the storage media devices
within that system using criteria specific to storage media
devices.
Spec 2:14—18.
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ claims on appeal:
1. A storage system comprising:
a plurality of storage media devices, each storage media
device comprising one or more addressable storage regions,
each region assigned a different weight based on at least a fast
access rate, a mid-range access rate or a slow access rate,
respectively;
a storage controller controlling said plurality of storage
media devices, said storage controller:
receives one or more commands from a queue
representing a load;
identifies a set of weighted storage regions having said
mid-range access rate to target a mid-range performance level
that is enough to service said load; and
distributes said load based on said mid-range
performance level by utilizing only said set of weighted storage
regions having said mid-range access rate thereby targeting said
mid-range performance level that is enough to service said load
wherein the performance level is based on weights that include
previous performance and real time performance.
App. Br. 18 (Claims App’x).
2
Appeal 2017-005951
Application 14/099,845
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 5—8, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Belluomini et al. (US 8,706,962 B2; iss. Apr. 22, 2014,
hereinafter “Belluomini”), Chatterjee et al. (US 6,675,195 Bl; iss. Jan. 6,
2004, hereinafter “Chatterjee”), and Chen et al. (US 8,566,483 Bl; iss. Oct.
22, 2013, hereinafter “Chen”). Final Act. 3—6.
Claims 3, 4, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Belluomini, Chatterjee, Chen, and Rabii et al. (US 2010/
0281230 Al; pub. Nov. 4, 2010, hereinafter “Rabii”). Final Act. 6—7.
ISSUES (APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS)
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in rejecting claim l3 because
the cited prior art cited does not teach or suggest the following limitations:
(1) “a plurality of storage media devices, each storage media device
comprising one or more addressable storage regions, each region
assigned a different weight based on at least a fast access rate, a
mid-range access rate or a slow access rate, respectively” (App.
Br. 5-8);
(2) a storage controller that “receives one or more commands from a
queue representing a load” (id. at 9—11);
(3) a storage controller that “identifies a set of weighted storage
regions having said mid-range access rate to target a mid-range
performance level that is enough to service said load” (id. at 11—
13); and
(4) a storage controller that “distributes said load based on said mid­
range performance level by utilizing only said set of weighted
storage regions having said mid-range access rate thereby
targeting said mid-range performance level that is enough to
service said load wherein the performance level is based on
3 Appellants argue the patentability of claims 2—12 solely based on the
arguments presented for claim 1. See App. Br. 15—17.
3
Appeal 2017-005951
Application 14/099,845
weights that include previous performance and real time
performance” {id. at 13—14).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions of reversible error. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions.
Instead, for each contested finding, unless indicated otherwise, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and reasons as set forth in the rejection from which this
appeal is taken and as set forth in the Answer. We highlight the following
for emphasis.
1. Storage Devices Comprising Weighted Addressable Storage Regions
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies primarily on Belluomini,
which discloses a multi-tier storage system in which each tier “has a single
and unique type of storage based on a storage tiers’ performance/cost/energy
profile” (Belluomini 3:47—49). See Final Act. ?>—A. The Examiner finds,
inter alia, Belluomini teaches “a plurality of storage media devices, each
storage media device comprising one or more addressable storage regions,
each region assigned a weight based on at least a fast access rate, a mid­
range access rate or a slow access rate, respectively,” as recited. Id. at 3
(citing Belluomini Fig. 1, 3:41—65).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because “Belluomini does not
teach that each storage device comprises one or more addressable storage
regions that are each assigned a weight based upon an access rate. ” App.
Br. 6. Specifically, Appellants contend the Examiner errs because
“Belluomini is silent as to assigning weight to any storage region of the
storage devices 108a-n. Belluomini is silent as to assigning a weight to a
4
Appeal 2017-005951
Application 14/099,845
storage region that is weighted differently based upon its associated access
rate.” Id. at 7. This argument is unpersuasive.
We agree with the Examiner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have understood Belluomini’s storage devices to have addressable storage
regions. See Final Act. 3, Ans. 4—5. The artisan further would have
understood Belluomini, by disclosing assignment of storage devices to tiers
based on performance, teaches or suggests assigning a storage device to a
tier based on an associated access rate of the storage device. See Final Act.
3, Ans. 3—5; see also Belluomini’s Background and Brief Summary (1:15—
2:34) (discussing performance criteria such as “high random access
capability per gigabyte” for solid-state drives, and using “data access and
resource information” for configuring different data storage devices into
different performance tiers).
We agree with the Examiner that, by assigning devices to different
tiers, such as one to a “tier with high performance storage,” another to a “tier
with cheaper and more conventional storage,” and a third to a “tier with
optical storage (e.g., tape storage) [that] may be used to backup data”
(Belluomini 3:41—65), “media with a fast access rate is weighted by the
system of Belluomini to be assigned to a first tier, media with a mid-range
access rate is weighted by the system of Belluomini to be assigned to
another tier, and media with a slow access rate is weighted by the system of
Belluomini to be assigned to yet another tier” (Ans. 5). In other words, by
disclosing assignment to tiers based on relative performance, an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have understood that Belluomini teaches assigning a
5
Appeal 2017-005951
Application 14/099,845
relative performance “weight” for a storage device (and its constituent
region(s)), as recited by claim l.4
In reply, Appellants argue the Examiner errs by not showing how
Belluomini teaches “storage regions within a storage media device that are
assigned weights individual to each storage region within the storage media
device.” Reply Br. 2. This argument is unpersuasive. The requirement of
“each storage media device comprising one or more addressable storage
regions,” as recited, requires a storage device to have no more than one
addressable storage region (i.e., “one or more”). The broadest reasonable
interpretation, in light of the Specification, of “a plurality of storage media
devices, each storage media device comprising one or more addressable
storage regions, each region assigned a different weight based on at least a
fast access rate, a mid-range access rate or a slow access rate, respectively,”
as the skilled artisan would have understood it, encompasses Belluomini’s
tiered storage system in which the storage regions of storage devices are
assigned to three tiers with three different performance levels. See Ans. 3—5.
We note that, consistent with Appellants’ argument in the Reply Brief,
the storage devices of Appellants’ preferred embodiment in the Specification
and Drawings each have multiple storage regions with different access rates.
See Fig. 1, Spec. 10:14—11:2. We decline to limit the scope of claim 1 based
on this embodiment. On this point Appellants’ Specification is clear:
“[wjhile this specification contains many specific implementation details,
these should not be construed as limitations on the scope of any invention or
4 In view of Appellants’ Specification and Claims, “weight” encompasses
the ordinary, relevant dictionary meanings of “importance” and “relative
importance.” See, e.g., www.meriam-webster.conEdlctionary/weight;
www.dictionary.com/browse/weight (both last accessed Oct. 19, 2017).
6
Appeal 2017-005951
Application 14/099,845
of what may be claimed, but rather as descriptions of features that may be
specific to particular embodiments of particular inventions.” Spec. 23:14—
17; see also id. at 24:16—17 (“particular embodiments of the subject matter
have been described, but other embodiments are within the scope of the
following claims”).
2. Controller that Receives Commands from a Queue Representing a Load
The Examiner finds the combined disclosures of Belluomini and
Chatterjee teach a storage controller that “receives one or more commands
from a queue representing a load,” as recited. Final Act. 3^4 (citing
Belluomini 3:41—52, Chatterjee Fig. 3B, 6:15—34). Appellants argue
“Belluomini merely recites receiving data access information and not
commands representing a load. In particular, Belluomini teaches that the
data collector receives data access information for storage extents to be
stored in the storage system. Belluomini is silent as to this data access
information representing a load.” App. Br. 9 (citations omitted). Appellants
further argue “Chatterjee does not teach that one or more commands
representing a load are received from a queue 2'" Id. “Rather, Chatterjee
discloses that a command receiver module 310 receives a command from the
client application software coupled at input 308 and stores the command in
the queue 320 to be executed at a later time.” Id. Appellants also argue
“Chatterjee fails to disclose that the commands received by the command
receiver module 310 are commands that ‘represent a loadId. at 10.
The Examiner answers by finding an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have understood that “a Toad’ is merely an amount of work a computing
system performs,” that “an I/O request is a command to read or write to a
given device, which is an amount of work,” and, thus, “an I/O request is ‘a
7
Appeal 2017-005951
Application 14/099,845
command representing a load,’” as recited. Ans. 6. Acknowledging that
Chatterjee “teaches storing commands in a queue ‘to be executed at a later
time,’” the Examiner finds that, by receiving these commands back out of
the queue at a later time, Chatterjee, in view of Belluomini, teaches
“receiv[ing] one or more commands from a queue representing a load,” as
recited. Id. (citing Chatterjee 4:58—61).
We agree with the Examiner. An ordinarily skilled artisan would
have understood the receipt of I/O requests by the multi-tier storage system
in Belluomini (see 3:42-43) constitutes receiving commands that represent
an I/O load on the storage system. The artisan would also have understood
Chatterjee’s disclosure of storing of received commands in a queue for later
execution (Chatterjee Figs. 3A—B; 4:5—16)5 also teaches later receiving the
commands from the queue for execution. Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that the combination of Belluomini and Chatterjee teaches a storage
controller that “receives one or more commands from a queue representing a
load,” as recited. See Final Act. 3—\\ Ans. 6—7. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981) (The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references.).
3. Identifying Weighted Storage Regions having a Mid-Range Access Rate
The Examiner finds Belluomini’s assignment of storage to different
tiers based on different performance level requirements teaches a storage
controller that “identifies a set of weighted storage regions having said mid-
5 We agree with the Examiner “that is extremely common in the art for a
computing device to store received commands in a queue, so that if the
computing device is occupied with other tasks and cannot immediately
execute the command upon receipt, the command is not lost.” Ans. 6—7.
8
Appeal 2017-005951
Application 14/099,845
range access rate to target a mid-range performance level that is enough to
service said load,” as recited. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Belluomini 3:41—52,
Fig. 3). Appellants contend the Examiner errs because Belluomini makes
“no mention of a ‘storage region having a mid-range access rate;’ much less
a controller that performs the recited requirement. App. Br. 12.
“Belluomini does not recite ‘weighted storage regions, ’ and much less a
controller that ‘identifies’ a first and second set of ‘weighted storage
regions,’ as required.”6 Id.
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive for essentially the reasons
discussed above for how Belluomini teaches storage devices comprising
storage regions weighted for fast, mid-range, and slow access rates. We
agree with the Examiner that Belluomini, by teaching three levels of storage
tiers weighted to three different performance levels, teaches a mid-range
performance tier. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood
Belluomini thereby teaches “a set of weighted storage regions having said
mid-range access rate to target a mid-range performance level that is enough
to service said load,” as recited. See Ans. 7. As discussed above, storage
devices allocated to the tiers include storage regions, and assigning storage
devices (and their storage region(s)) to tiers effectively assigns the tiers’
performance levels (access rate-based weights) to the storage regions. The
skilled artisan would have understood the allocation of storage devices to
performance tiers in Belluomini accomplishes the basic purpose of being
sufficient “to service said load,” as recited. Id.
6 Contrary to Appellants’ argument, the storage controller recited in claim 1
does not require identifying “a first and second set of weighted storage
regions.”
9
Appeal 2017-005951
Application 14/099,845
4. Distributing the Load Based on Mid-Range Performance Level
The Examiner finds the combined disclosures of Belluomini and Chen
teach or suggest a controller that
distributes said load based on said mid-range performance level
by utilizing only said set of weighted storage regions having
said mid-range access rate thereby targeting said mid-range
performance level that is enough to service said load. . . .
“wherein the performance level is based on weights that include
previous performance and real time performance[,]”
as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4—5 (citing Belluomini Fig. 3, Chen 5:64—
6:44).
Appellants argue that
because Belluomini is silent as to support for weighted storage
regions of the plurality of storage media devices and a storage
controller that identifies a first and second set of weighted
storage regions possessing mid-range access rates as required in
the claims, Belluomini does not disclose a storage controller
that distributes a load within the [first and second] weighted
storage region based on weights that include previous
performance and real-time performance, as required.
App. Br. 13-14.
This is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, as discussed above, an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that Belluomini, by
teaching assignment of storage devices with different access rates to
different performance tiers is not silent as to the claimed identifying of
weighted storage regions with three different access rates. Second, this
argument does not address the Examiner’s finding that Chen teaches the
requirement of “wherein the performance level is based on weights that
include previous performance and real time performance,” as recited. See
Final Act. 4. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
10
Appeal 2017-005951
Application 14/099,845
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; see also In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (each reference cited by the Examiner must be read,
not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior
art as a whole).
Appellants further argue the Examiner errs in relying on Chen for
teaching “wherein the performance level is based on weights that include
previous performance and real time performance,” as recited, because “Chen
merely discloses that the storage system may be made up of physical devices
having ‘different physical and performance characteristics’ or ‘dynamic
aspects’” and “Chen is silent as to ‘weights that include previous
performance and real time performance.’” App. Br. 14 (citing Chen 5:64—
7:45). This argument is unpersuasive. Similar to Belluomini, Chen teaches
a system in which storage devices are allocated to different tiers in a multi­
tiered storage system based on performance. See Chen Fig. 2, 2:29-50. As
discussed above, skilled artisans would have understood Belluomini to teach
assigning relative performance weights for a storage devices and their
constituent regions. In discussing schemes for allocating devices to different
tiers, Chen specifically teaches using previous performance (“actual
observed performance”) and real-time performance (“aspects related to
current I/O performance” or “current workload”). See id. at 6:4-44. Thus,
Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding the combined
teachings of Belluomini and Chen teach or suggest “distribut[ing] said load
based on said mid-range performance level. . . wherein the performance
level is based on weights that include previous performance and real time
performance,” as recited.
11
Appeal 2017-005951
Application 14/099,845
Conclusion
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim
1. For the same reasons we sustain the rejections of claims 2—12, for which
Appellants offer no substantive arguments separate from those presented for
claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1—12 under
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
12