Ex Parte Bell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

12786072 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121786,072 05/24/2010 Robert H. Bell JR.
77351 7590 06/29/2016
IBM CORP. (AUS)
C/O THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES BAUDINO, PLLC
2313 ROOSEVELT DRIVE
SUITE A
ARLINGTON, TX 76016
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.
AUS920100108US1 2107
EXAMINER
NAMAZI, MEHDI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2139
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT H. BELL, JR., LOUIS BENNIE CAPPS, JR.,
DANIEL M. DREPS, LUIS A. LASTRAS-MONTANO, and
MICHAEL JAY SHAPIRO
Appeal2014-007249
Application 12/786,072
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1---6, 8-11, and 13-25. Claims 7 and 12
have been canceled. See App. Br. 16-22 (Claims App'x). We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007249
Application 12/786,072
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to managing data transfer.
Spec. ,-r 10. In a data processing system, data to be written to a memory
subsystem is compared to stored data patterns. Id. The stored data patterns
are representative of data patterns likely to be encountered by the processor
unit in processing different data. Id. If the data to be written matches a
particular data pattern, a pattern tag is substituted for the corresponding data
pattern and the pattern tag is transmitted to the memory subsystem. Id.
Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
comparing, by a processor unit of a data processing
system, data to be written to a memory subsystem to a stored data
pattern;
responsive to determining that the data matches the stored
data pattern, replacing the matching data with a pattern tag
corresponding to the matching data pattern;
transmitting the pattern tag to the memory subsystem; and
responsive to receiving the pattern tag at the memory
subsystem, storing the pattern tag to a location in a memory
device where the corresponding data pattern would reside in the
absence of the matching data pattern.
3. The method of Claim 1, further comprising:
receiving at a memory buffer of the memory subsystem
the pattern tag from the processor unit;
determining the data corresponding to the pattern tag; and
writing the corresponding data to the memory device.
2
Appeal2014-007249
Application 12/786,072
5. The method of Claim 1, further comprising:
responsive to determining that a portion of the data
matches the stored data pattern, replacing the matching portion
of the data with the pattern tag corresponding to the matching
data pattern; and
transmitting the pattern tag and a remaining portion of the
data to the memory subsystem.
6. The method of Claim 1, further comprising:
receiving at a memory buffer of the memory subsystem
the pattern tag from the processor unit; and
storing the pattern tag and a marker indicating the stored
pattern tag to the memory device.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Ohira et al.
Kimura
US 2009/0193219 Al
US 8,255,657 B2
Rejections
July 30, 2009
Aug. 28, 2012
Claims 1---6, 8-11, 13-15, and 20-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Ohira. Final Act. 3-12.
Claims 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ohira and Kimura. Final Act. 13-15.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Ohira discloses
"responsive to receiving the pattern tag at the memory subsystem, storing
3
Appeal2014-007249
Application 12/786,072
the pattern tag to a location in a memory device where the corresponding
data pattern would reside in the absence of the matching data pattern," as
recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Ohira discloses the
disputed limitation because "Ohira appears to disclose that the reception
program refers to a pattern management table to convert the pattern ID into
real data, and then the reception program writes the real data in a storage
area of a virtual volume" and, therefore, does not disclose storing a pattern
tag to a location in a memory device where the corresponding data pattern
would reside in the absence of the matching data pattern, as required by
claim 1. App. Br. 6 (citing Ohira i-f 97). Appellants further contend
"regardless of whether the writing program 111 of Ohira receives real data
[or] a pattern ID, the writing program 111 writes only the real data to the
storage subsystem." Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted). We disagree.
Ohira discloses when data read from the copy source normal volume
matches the specific data pattern "the copy data is written in the
transmission destination virtual volume by using the writing program 111
described in the first embodiment of this invention." Ohira i-f 98. Ohira
discloses that upon reception of a write request, the writing program
determines a state of a page corresponding to a write requested address.
Ohira i-f 71. If the state of the page is A 1, the writing program writes the
specific pattern data to the page. Ohira i-f 74. If the state of the page is A2,
the writing program writes the specified ID of the pattern data to a segment
of the page. Ohira i-f 78. As such, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in
finding Ohira discloses the disputed limitation.
4
Appeal2014-007249
Application 12/786,072
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2, 4, 8-10, and 13-15, because
Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or
have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1 above (see App. Br. 7), claims 2, 4, 8-
10, and 13-15 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 3
Issue: Did the Examiner err by finding Ohira discloses "determining
the data corresponding to the pattern tag" and "writing the corresponding
data to the memory device," as recited in claim 3?
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Ohira discloses the
disputed limitations. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 3--4. According to
Appellants, "[c]laim 3, when read in combination with Claim 1 (from which
Claim 3 depends), recite[s] that both the pattern tag and the corresponding
data matching the pattern tag are written to the storage device. App. Br. 8.
Appellants assert Ohira fails to disclose the disputed limitations because
"Ohira does not appear to disclose writing both the pattern tag and the
corresponding data matching the pattern tag to the storage device in response
to receiving the pattern tag from the source," as required by claim 3. Id.
Appellants further contend
5
Appeal2014-007249
Application 12/786,072
[T]he table 120 is used in Ohira to determine whether real
data written to the storage subsystem matches a particular pattern
and, if so, the pattern ID is specified by the writing program 111
so that a count number in the segment management table 122
may be added/incremented. Thus, as indicated above, only the
real data is stored to the storage subsystem in Ohira.
Reply Br. 3.
We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. Ohira discloses
when data read from the copy source normal volume matches the specific
data pattern "the copy data is written in the transmission destination virtual
volume by using the writing program 111 described in the first embodiment
of this invention." Ohira i-f 98. Ohira further discloses that upon reception
of a write request, the writing program determines a state of a page
corresponding to a write requested address. Ohira i-f 71. If the state of the
page is Al, the writing program writes the specific pattern data to the page.
Ohira i-f 74. In addition, Ohira discloses when the specific pattern count
number for the specific pattern data exceeds a threshold value, data actually
written in the page of state Al are checked. Ohira i-f 75. Ohira describes
when the data are all recognized to be the specific pattern data, the state of
the page is changed from Al to A2. Ohira i-fi-160, 75. Ohira discloses
changing the state of the page includes creating a new segment management
table for the writing target page and recording the pattern ID for the specific
pattern data for each segment of the writing target page. Ohira i-f 75. As
such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Ohira discloses the
disputed limitations.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 3.
Regarding the rejection of claim 11, because Appellants have
6
Appeal2014-007249
Application 12/786,072
reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 3 above (see App. Br. 8), claim 11 falls therewith. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 5 and 20--25
Issue: Did the Examiner err by finding Ohira discloses "responsive to
determining that a portion of the data matches the stored data pattern,
replacing the matching portion of the data with the pattern tag corresponding
to the matching data pattern" and "transmitting the pattern tag and a
remaining portion of the data to the memory subsystem," as recited in claim
5?
The Examiner finds Ohira discloses:
[W]riting program 128 sequentially reads a segment (the
claimed "portion") of the page (data line) to judge whether data
of a segment (portion) matches anyone of the specific patterns.
If the data matches one of the specific patterns, the data
transmission program converts the data into pattern ID (tag) and
transmits the pattern 10 (tag) to the transmission destination
storage subsystem through the packet (data line)[] of the
"portion".
Ans. 21 (citing Ohira i-fi-196, 124--125). Based on these findings, the
Examiner finds Ohira discloses the disputed limitations. Id.
Appellants contend Ohira fails to disclose the disputed limitations
because Ohira does not disclose "determining whether a portion of the read
data matches a pattern and then replacing only that portion that matches
the pattern with a pattern ID," as required by claim 5. App. Br. 8; Reply
Br. 5.
We find Appellants' contention persuasive. We find Ohira discloses
if the read data does not match anyone of the specific pattern data, the data
7
Appeal2014-007249
Application 12/786,072
transmission program transmits the read data as a packet in its format to the
transmission destination storage subsystem. Ohira i-f 96. Ohira further
discloses "[ o Jn the other hand, if it is judged in Step 1702 that the data read
in Step 1701 matches one of the specific pattern data, the data transmission
program 2103 converts the data into pattern ID ... and transmits the pattern
ID to the transmission destination storage subsystem through the packet."
Id. Ohira, therefore, discloses that either the data or the pattern ID is
transmitted to the transmission destination data storage subsystem. As such,
Ohira fails to disclose transmitting the pattern tag and a remaining portion
of the data to the memory subsystem, as required by claim 5.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5
and claims 20-25 which recite similar limitations.
Claim 6
Issue: Did the Examiner err by finding Ohira discloses "storing the
pattern tag and a marker indicating the stored pattern tag to the memory
device," as recited in claim 6?
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Ohira discloses the
disputed limitations. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 6. In particular, Appellants
contend:
First, as indicated above, the pattern ID in Ohira is not
stored to the storage subsystem. Second, there appears to be no
disclosure in Ohira, either in the portion relied on by the
Examiner or elsewhere, indicating that both a pattern ID and a
marker indicating the stored pattern tag are written to the storage
device. Moreover, the pattern ID of Ohira cannot be construed
to correspond to both the "pattern tag" and the "marker" as
recited by Claim 6 as this would be in improper claim
construction.
8
Appeal2014-007249
Application 12/786,072
Reply Br. 6; see also App. Br. 9-10.
We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. We find Ohira
discloses when data read from the copy source normal volume matches the
specific data pattern "the copy data is written in the transmission destination
virtual volume by using the writing program 111 described in the first
embodiment of this invention." Ohira i-f 98. Ohira discloses that upon
reception of a write request, the writing program determines a state of a page
corresponding to a write requested address. Ohira i-f 71. If the state of the
page is Al, the writing program writes the specific pattern data to the page.
Ohira i-f 74. Ohira further discloses when the specific pattern count number
for the specific pattern data exceeds a threshold value, data actually written
in the page of state Al are checked. Ohira i-f 75. Ohira describes when the
data are all recognized to be the specific pattern data, the state of the page is
changed from Al to A2. Ohira i-fi-160, 75. Addtionally, Ohira discloses
changing the state of the page includes creating a new segment management
table for the writing target page and recording the pattern ID for the specific
pattern data for each segment of the writing target page. Ohira i-f 75. Ohira
further discloses that when creating the segment management table "[an] ID
for identifying a specific data pattern is recorded in the pattern ID 210" of
the table. Ohira i-f 57. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding Ohira discloses the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 6.
Claims 16--19
Regarding the rejection of claim 16, Appellants present substantially
9
Appeal2014-007249
Application 12/786,072
the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim
1 above. See App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 11. Accordingly, for the reasons
discussed surpa with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 16 and claims 17-19, which depend from claim 16
and are not argued separately with particularity. See id.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 8-11, and 13-15
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and the Examiner's rejection of claims 16-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 20-25 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e).
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-IN-PART
10