Ex Parte Hamilton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2016

12949405 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/949,405 11/18/2010
60501 7590 08/05/2016
LENOVO COMPANY (LENOVO-KLS)
c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP
8601 Ranch Road 2222
Ste. 1-225
AUSTIN, TX 78730
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey R. Hamilton
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.
XRPS920100092US 1 5746
EXAMINER
KROFCHECK, MICHAEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2138
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/05/2016 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):
office@klspatents.com
kate@klspatents.com
hanna@klspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY R. HAMIL TON, MELBA I. LOPEZ,
ROSS L. MICKENS, and MARKESHA F. PARKER
Appeal2015-002072
Application 12/949,405
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 11-13 and 15-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The invention relates to backup memory administration (Spec. 1: 11-
12). Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
Appeal2015-002072
Application 12/949,405
11. A system for backup memory administration, the system
compnsmg:
random access memory;
a memory backup controller coupled to the random access
memory, wherein the memory backup controller is configured to:
store in an active memory device blocks of computer data
received from the random access memory, wherein the active
memory device comprises a first flash memory and is
communicably coupled to the memory backup controller via a
memory device adapter by a first connector connecting the active
memory device to the memory device adapter;
record in a change log identifications of each block of
computer data that is stored in the active memory device;
detect a backup trigger event; and
responsive to the detecting of the backup trigger event:
copy from the active memory device, to a backup memory
device, the blocks of data identified in the change log, wherein
the backup memory device comprises a second flash memory
and is communicably coupled to the memory backup controller
via the memory device adapter by a second connector connecting
the backup memory device to the memory device adapter,
wherein the first connector and the second connector are
independent of each other; and
clear the change log,
wherein the backup trigger event is triggered in response
to one of a change in a power state of a processor and a change
in the power state of the memory backup controller.
2
Appeal2015-002072
Application 12/949,405
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Prabhu
Innan
Kawamura
Shin
Okada
Harari
Sela
US 2003/0056062 Al
US 2003/0088592 Al
US 2005/0240637 Al
US 2006/0069931 Al
US 2007/0266215 Al
US 7,362,618 B2
US 2010/0030982 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Mar. 20, 2003
May 8, 2003
Oct. 27, 2005
Mar. 30, 2006
Nov. 15, 2007
Apr. 22, 2008
Feb.4,2010
Claims 11 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kawamura, Prabhu, Sela, and Shin.
Claims 12, 13, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kawamura, Prabhu, Sela, Shin, Harari, and Okada.
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kawamura, Prabhu, Sela, Shin, and Innan.
Claims 11-13 and 15-19 stand provisionally rejected under the non-
statutory ground of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-3 and
8-9 of U.S. Patent Application 13/494,382 to Hamilton et al.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejections
Appellants contend "[t]he backup target DB region of Kawamura does
not disclose the active memory device of the claims and is not analogous to
the active memory device in any way" (Br. 6). Appellants also contend "[i]t
is unclear what the Examiner contends discloses the claimed device adapter,
3
Appeal2015-002072
Application 12/949,405
or the claimed first and second connectors, but Sela merely discloses that
two card readers are connected to a host device by two communication
lines" (Br. 7). We disagree with Appellants.
Kawamura discloses a backup processing system that updates data in
a backup target DB region 111 in a storage device 110 (see Kawamura, i-fi-1
28-31). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Kawamura's
backup target DB region fails to disclose the claimed "active memory
device" (see Br. 6). The Examiner finds "[t]he term 'active' is not specially
defined within the current specification and it does not hold a special
meaning in the computer memory art. Any memory device that is in use and
not turned off, can be an 'active memory device."' (Ans. 4). Absent a
Reply Brief rebutting the Examiner's broad, but reasonable interpretation of
the claim language "active memory device," we agree with the Examiner
that Kawamura's backup target DB region meets this limitation (id.).
Further, to the extent Appellants argue Kawamura's backup target DB
region is not a flash memory, as recited in claim 1, we note the Examiner
relies on Sela, not Kawamura, for this feature (see Final Act. 5).
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
failed to identify where the claimed "memory device adapter," "first
connector," and "second connector" can be found in Sela (see Br. 7). The
Examiner provides a clear mapping of the claimed elements to Sela's
teachings as follows: "Looking at figure 3, ... [h]ost device (320) is
analogous to the claimed memory device adaptor .... Card reader (340)
and communication line (3 65) makeup the second connector . . . . The
claimed first connector is the card reader (330) and the communication line
(355) .... " Ans. 5---6. Appellants have not specifically explained why the
4
Appeal2015-002072
Application 12/949,405
identified components of Sela's Figure 3 fail to disclose the claimed
"memory device adapter," "first connector," and "second connector."
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
11, and claim 17 not specifically argued separately. Although claims 12, 13,
15, 16, 18, and 19 are nominally argued separately, Appellants rely on the
same arguments as discussed above regarding claim 11 (Br. 8). We thus
also sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19.
The Double Patenting Rejection
Appellants provide no specific arguments regarding the non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting rejection. We, thus, proforma affirm the
Examiner's double patenting rejection.
CONCLUSIONS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
11-13 and 15-19.
Under the doctrine of non-statutory obviousness-type double
patenting, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's rejection of
claims 11-13 and 15-19.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11-13
and 15-19 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).
AFFIRMED
5