Ex Parte Chang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2017

12613537 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 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.
12/613,537 11/06/2009 Jichuan Chang 82259618 6513
56436 7590 02/09/2017
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
GREENE, JOSEPH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/09/2017 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):
hpe.ip.mail@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 JICHUAN CHANG, KEVIN T. LIM,
and PARTHASARATHY RANGANATHAN
Appeal 2016-001824
Application 12/613,537
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—4, 7, and 26—34, i.e., all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, L.P. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-001824
Application 12/613,537
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention concerns “systems,
methods, and apparatus” that have “one or more compute blades to generate
and use data and one or more memory blades to generate a computational
result.” Spec. 3:3—4, Abstract.2 The Specification explains that “[mjemory
blades provide memory expansion and sharing across multiple compute
blades with each compute blade using extra memory capacity in the memory
blade to increase performance between its own local storage system and its
central processing unit (CPU).” Spec. 3:13—16. The Specification also
explains that “[o]ne or more storage devices are in communication with and
remotely located from the one or more compute blades,” and “[t]he one or
more storage devices store and serve the data for the one or more compute
blades.” Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims
under consideration and reads as follows:
1. A storage system in communication with one or more
remote storage devices, the storage system comprising:
one or more compute blades to process data chunks;
one or more memory blades coupled to the one or more
compute blades, the one or more memory blades to provide
additional memory storage for the one or more compute blades,
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed November 6, 2009; “Final Act.” for the Final Office
Action, mailed December 18, 2014; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed
May 14, 2015; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed September 15,
2015; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed November 13, 2015.
2
Appeal 2016-001824
Application 12/613,537
the one or more memory blades including a memory controller
to perform operations comprising:
receiving data chunks from the one or more
compute blades;
generating associated fingerprints for the data
chunks;
compressing one or more of the data chunks and
transferring the one or more compressed data chunks to a
local cache;
encrypting one or more of the data chunks and
transferring the one or more encrypted data chunks to the
one or more remote storage devices;
using the associated fingerprints, managing a hash
table to map physical storage locations of the data
chunks;
executing a de-duplication algorithm to discover
redundant data chunks in both the local cache and the one
or more remote storage devices;
based on results of the executed de-duplication
algorithm, deleting the redundant data chunks from the
local cache and the one or more remote storage devices;
receiving an access request from the one or more
compute blades to access a specified data chunk;
in response to receiving the access request,
utilizing the hash table to determine whether the
specified data chunk is located in the local cache; and
in response to determining that the specified data
chunk is not in the local cache, retrieving the specified
data chunk from the one or more remote storage devices.
App. Br. 18—19 (Claims App.).
3
Appeal 2016-001824
Application 12/613,537
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Anderson US 2004/0210795 A1
Thompson et al. US 2006/0282618 A1
(“Thompson”)
Margulis US 2007/0124474 Al
Bozeketal. US 2011/0078679 Al
(“Bozek”)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—4, 7, 26, and 28—33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Margulis, Thompson, and Anderson. Final Act. 2—6;
Ans. 2—6.
Claims 27 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Margulis, Thompson, Anderson, and Bozek. Final
Act. 6—7; Ans. 6—7.
Oct. 21,2004
Dec. 14, 2006
May 31,2007
Mar. 31,2011
(filed Sept. 30, 2009)
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1—4, 7, and 26—34 in light
of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we concur with Appellants’ contention that the Examiner erred in
finding that the cited portions of Anderson teach or suggest a “memory
blade” that “executes] a de-duplication algorithm to discover redundant data
chunks in both the local cache and the one or more remote storage devices”
as required by independent claims 1 and 28.
4
Appeal 2016-001824
Application 12/613,537
The Rejection of Claims 1—4, 7, 26, and 28—33 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 28 because Anderson does not teach ‘“executing a de-
duplication algorithm to discover redundant data chunks . . as recited in
claim 1—much less doing so ‘to discover redundant data chunks in both the
local cache and the one or more remote storage devices,’ as further recited in
claim 1.” App. Br. 9, 15 (emphasis omitted); see Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner finds that Anderson teaches (1) a storage system with
mass storage that notifies a remote storage location after a particular piece of
data has been stored in storage system’s mass storage, (2) the remote storage
location, “having received the notification, has now discovered that the data
it contains is redundant,” and (3) the remote storage location “then removes
the data (i.e. executes a de-duplication algorithm).” Ans. 7. The Examiner
reasons that “the data was discovered to be in both” the storage system’s
mass storage and the remote storage location and then “removed
(de-duplicated).” Id.
In response, Appellants argue that the claims require that a “memory
blade” perform the step of “executing a de-duplication algorithm” rather
than a remote storage device. Reply Br. 4, 6. Appellants then argue that
Anderson does not satisfy that requirement because the remote storage
location in Anderson deletes redundant data, i.e., executes a de-duplication
algorithm. Id. at 4—5. Appellants point out that the Examiner’s Answer
confirms that the remote storage location in Anderson executes a
de-duplication algorithm. Id. at 5—6 (citing Ans. 7).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner relies on the remote
storage location in Anderson for “executing a de-duplication algorithm.”
5
Appeal 2016-001824
Application 12/613,537
Based on the record before us, the Examiner has not adequately explained
how the cited portions of Anderson teach or suggest a “memory blade”
according to independent claims 1 and 28 that “execut[es] a de-duplication
algorithm.” Further, based on the record before us, the Examiner has not
shown how the teachings of Margulis and Thompson overcome this
deficiency in Anderson. See Final Act. 2-4; Ans. 2-4, 7—8. Thus, we do not
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 28 based on Margulis,
Thompson, and Anderson.
Claims 2-4, 7, 26, and 29-33 depend from claims 1 and 28. For the
reasons discussed regarding claims 1 and 28, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of these dependent claims based on Margulis,
Thompson, and Anderson.
Because this determination resolves the appeal with respect to
claims 1—4, 7, 26, and 28—33, we need not address Appellants’ other
arguments regarding Examiner error.
The Rejection of Claims 27 and 24 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 27 depends from claim 1, and claim 34 depends from claim 28.
App. Br. 20, 22 (Claims App.). Based on the record before us, the Examiner
has not shown how the additionally cited Bozek reference overcomes the
deficiency in Anderson for claims 1 and 28 discussed above. Thus, we do
not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 27 and 34 based on Margulis,
Thompson, Anderson, and Bozek.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—4, 7, and
26-34.
6
Appeal 2016-001824
Application 12/613,537
REVERSED
7