Ex Parte GRUBE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

13204061 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/204,061 08/05/2011 GARY W. GRUBE
89322 7590 08/01/2018
Garlick & Markison (IBM)
106 E. 6th Street, Suite 900
Austin, TX 78701
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.
CS00620/END920l65754US6 9003
EXAMINER
AYASH, MARW AN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2133
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 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):
MMURDOCK@TEXASPATENTS.COM
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARY W. GRUBE, JASON K. RESCH,
TIMOTHY W. MARKISON, IL YA VOL VOVSKI, and
MANISH MOTWANI
Appeal2018-000562
Application 13/204,061 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000562
Application 13/204,061
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to migrating encoded data slices from a
memory device based on the priority access level of the data slices and the
end of life memory level of the device. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
determining a priority access level of an encoded data
slice stored on a memory device;
determining a soft failure level for the memory device;
determining whether to migrate the encoded data slice
from the memory device based on the priority access level and
the soft failure level; and
when it is determined to migrate the encoded data slice
from the memory device:
identifying another memory device; and
facilitating migration of the encoded data slice to
the another memory device.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Kubo et al. (US 2007/0174720 Al; July 26, 2007) and
Foster et al. (US 2008/0183975 Al; July 31, 2008). Final Act. 3-5.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of
Appellants' contentions and the evidence of record. Appellants persuade us
the Examiner fails to establish that the claims are unpatentable over the cited
references.
2
Appeal2018-000562
Application 13/204,061
The Examiner finds the combination of Kubo and Foster teaches or
suggests "determining a priority access level of an encoded data slice stored
on a memory device," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Kubo ,r,r 49,
52). In particular, the Examiner finds Kubo teaches RAID (Redundant
Array of Independent Disks) stripes stored across multiple memory devices.
Ans. 2 ( citing Kubo ,r,r 78-80). The Examiner finds Kubo teaches applying
a priority access level to the storage devices upon which the RAID stripes
are stored. Id. The Examiner finds Kubo teaches "determining a priority
access level of an encoded data slice stored on a memory device" because
applying a priority access level to a device is "substantially equivalent to
applying the same priority access level to all of the sub-units/stripes/encoded
data slices of that storage device." Id. at 2-3 (emphasis omitted).
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because the combination of
Kubo and Foster does not teach or suggest the "determining" limitation.
App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 4-5. In particular, Appellants argue Kubo's cited
"access level" refers to physical characteristics of the storage devices
themselves, not any property of the encoded data slices. App. Br. 6-7
(citing Kubo ,r,r 49, 52). Appellants argue the claimed "priority access
level" is specific to the encoded data slice, not the memory device upon
which the encoded data slice is stored. Id. According to Appellants, by
indicating that all data stored on a device has the same priority, Kubo
teaches that no single data slice has priority over any other data slice on the
device, which is contrary to the claimed invention. Reply Br. 5.
Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 1 recites, in
relevant part, "determining a priority access level of an encoded data slice
stored on a memory device" ( emphasis added). The claimed "priority access
3
Appeal2018-000562
Application 13/204,061
level" is a property of the claimed "encoded data slice," not the "memory
device" upon which the data slice is stored. As argued by Appellants, the
Examiner's interpretation of "priority access level" to include an access
level assigned to the memory device effectively assigns the same "priority
access level" to every data slice on the device. Reply Br. 4-5. The
Examiner's interpretation is inconsistent with the plain language of the
claims and the Specification, which explains that the priority access level
based on properties specific to the encoded data slice. See, e.g., Spec.
50:17-28.
Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Kubo and Foster. 2 We also do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 9 and 15, which recite
commensurate limitations, and claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20, dependent
therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20.
REVERSED
2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on "a
single dispositive issue").
4