Ex Parte Feldman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

13596262 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 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.
13/596,262 08/28/2012 Timothy Richard Feldman STL 16802.00 1972
64776 7590
HolzerlPLaw, P.C.
dba Holzer Patel Drennan
216 16th Street
Suite 1350
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
WONG, NANCI N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2136
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 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):
hiplaw@blackhillsip.com
docket @ hpdlaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY RICHARD FELDMAN
Appeal 2017-0002681
Application 13/596,262
Technology Center 2100
Before MELISSA A. HAAPALA, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6—16, and 18—22, which are all of the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Seagate Technology
LLC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-000268
Application 13/596,262
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a separately stored data block
redundancy related to a data block of a storage medium. Abstract, Spec. 11.
Claims 1 and 18 read as follows:
1. A method comprising:
storing a data block redundancy related to a data block of
a storage medium together with the mapping metadata for the
data block at a redundancy storage location that is not adjacent
to a storage location of the data block on the storage medium,
wherein the mapping metadata further comprises a forward map
entry pointing to the storage location of the data block on the
storage medium; and
retrieving data from the storage location of the data block
on the storage medium, wherein the storing and retrieving the
data block redundancy is managed with a same process as used
for the storing and retrieving of the forward map entries.
18. A storage system comprising:
a storage device having a first storage medium and a
second storage medium, the second storage medium not being
adjacent to the first storage medium; and
a processor configured to:
generate a data block redundancy for a data block
on the first storage medium;
store, on the second storage medium, the data block
redundancy related to the data block on the first storage
medium together with mapping metadata for the data
block, wherein the mapping metadata further comprises a
forward map entry pointing to the storage location of the
data block on the first storage medium;
retrieve data from the storage location of the data
block on the storage medium; and
verify a data coherency using the data block
redundancy, wherein the storing and retrieving the
redundancy is managed with a same process as used for
the storing and retrieving of the forward map entries that
points to the media location for the data storage.
2
Appeal 2017-000268
Application 13/596,262
REJECTIONS
Claim 18 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Sindhu et al. (US 2011/0252284 Al; published Oct. 13, 2011)
(“Sindhu”). Final Act. 3^1.
Claims 1,3,6,7,9, 12, 13,21, and 22 stand rejected under pre-AI A
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Sindhu and
Roohparvar et al. (US 2012/0106249 Al; published May 3, 2012)
(“Roohparvar”). Final Act. 4—9.
Claims 4, 8, 10, 11, 14—16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AI A
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sindhu combined with various other
prior art references.2 Final Act. 9—16.
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellant’s arguments, but do not find them
persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s
findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action
from which this appeal was taken. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Anticipation Rejection of Claim 18
With respect to independent claim 18, Appellant contends the cited
portions of Sindhu do not disclose verification of data coherency and, thus,
do not disclose the recited limitation “verily a data coherency using the data
block redundancy, wherein the storing and retrieving the redundancy is
managed with a same process as used for the storing and retrieving of the
forward map entries that points to the media location for the data storage.”
2 Appellant does not argue separate patentability for these claims (see App.
Br. 10).
3
Appeal 2017-000268
Application 13/596,262
App. Br. 8. Appellant argues “data integrity and data coherency are not the
same thing” because “[d]ata coherency is directed toward data that is the
same or consistent across a network, whereas data integrity is directed
toward whether data meets a certain standard.” Id. at 7—8
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner does not
contend, nor is the Examiner required to demonstrate, that the identical text
of rejected claim 18 appears in the cited reference. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s
findings that (1) a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted
both “verify data coherency” and “verify data integrity” to mean verify the
accuracy of data; (2) Sindhu teaches the disputed limitation because Sindhu
discloses performing data integrity operations on data blocks by checking
data protection information; (3) an example of data protection information
provided by Sindhu is a checksum; (4) and the redundancy information,
cyclic redundancy check (“CRC”), used to verify data coherency in the
Specification is a type of checksum. See Ans. 2—3.
Furthermore, although Appellant contends data integrity and data
coherency are different, Appellant does not provide an evidentiary basis for
that argument. See App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 9. It is well settled that mere
attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by
factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399,
1405 (CCPA 1974) (finding attorney argument is not evidence).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Sindhu discloses the disputed “verify” limitation of claim 18.
4
Appeal 2017-000268
Application 13/596,262
Appellant next contends Sindhu does not disclose the limitation “the
mapping metadata further comprises a forward map entry point to the
storage location of the data block on the first storage medium,” recited in
claim 18. App. Br. 9. Appellant argues Sindhu’s control block is not
“mapping metadata,” and that Appellant’s Specification discloses storing
redundancy information about data blocks of storage media at a location
different from the location of the data block. App. Br. 10.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner found, and
we agree, that the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “mapping metadata”
is any information that associates one entity to another entity. Ans. 3.
Under that interpretation, the Examiner found “[t]he control block disclosed
in paragraph [0056] of Sindhu is a mapping metadata as it stores information
that associates/maps the control block to a data block.” Id. The Examiner
further found “[f]ield 505 of the control block stores address information for
locating a particular data block stored in data memory, which is exactly what
a forward map entry is.” Id. Appellant has not persuaded us that the
Examiner’s interpretation of “mapping metadata” is overly broad,
unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. Nor has Appellant
presented sufficient persuasive argument or objective evidence to rebut the
Examiner’s findings with regard to the teachings of Sindhu.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that Sindhu discloses the disputed limitations of claim 18.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claim 18.
5
Appeal 2017-000268
Application 13/596,262
Obviousness Rejections of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6—16, and 19—22
In rejecting claim 1 for obviousness, the Examiner found that Sindhu
teaches all of the recited limitations except “at a redundancy storage location
that is not adjacent to a storage location of the data block on the storage
medium,” for which the Examiner relied on Roohparvar. Final Act. 4—8.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the “metadata” taught
in Roohparvar “is not the equivalent of the ‘mapping metadata’ in the
present application.” App. Br. 9. Appellant argues that in the Specification,
“the redundancy and the mapping metadata are stored together, [so] the
controller has to access only the location of the storage of the combined
mapping metadata and the redundancy before reading the actual data.” App.
Br. 10. Appellant argues that, “[cjompared to that, the system disclosed in
Roohparvar would generally require a controller to seek to a location where
mapping information is located and then to seek to a location where the
redundancy is located to complete an operation to access data from the
storage media.” Id. Appellant further argues that neither Sindhu, nor
Roohparvar, “mention anything about such mapping metadata.” Id.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Appellant attacks the
references individually, even though the Examiner relies on the combination
of Sindhu and Roohparvar as teaching or suggesting the disputed elements.
Final Act. 4—8; Ans. 4—5; In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“The test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.”) The Examiner found
Sindhu teaches the “mapping metadata” recited in claim 1, and Roohparvar
teaches metadata used to store information regarding blocks can be stored
6
Appeal 2017-000268
Application 13/596,262
anywhere in memory. Ans. 4 (citing Roohparvar ]f]f 61—62). Appellant,
however, argues that “[sjimply because Roohparvar discloses ‘metadata that
used to store information regarding blocks [0061] can be stored anywhere in
memory’ does not mean storing ‘a data block redundancy related to a data
block of a storage medium together with the mapping metadata for the data
block at a redundancy storage location that is not adjacent to the storage
location of the data block on the storage medium, ’ as recited in claim 1 and
12.” Reply Br. 13. We are not persuaded by this argument.
Because Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
findings based on the combined teachings of Sindhu and Roohparvar, we
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We
also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 12,
not argued separately. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of dependent claims 3, 4, 6—11, 13—16, and 19-22, for which
Appellant makes no separate, substantive arguments. App. Br. 10, 12.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6—16, and 18—22
is affirmed.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7