Ex Parte Jewell et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 25, 2012

10929321 (B.P.A.I. May. 25, 2012)

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.
10/929,321 08/30/2004 Colin Robert Jewell GB920030041US1 5771
7590 05/25/2012
Dillon & Yudell LLP
Suite 2110
8911 North Capital of Texas Hwy.
Austin, TX 78759
EXAMINER
ROJAS, MIDYS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte COLIN ROBERT JEWELL,
ROBERT BRUCE NICHOLSON, and
FRANCIS MICHAEL HUW
____________________

Appeal 2010-0020611
Application 10/929,321
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corp. (App.
Br. 3.)

Appeal 2010-002061
Application 10/929,321

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 21-24 and 35-37. Claims 1-20, 25-34, and 38 have been
canceled. (App. Br. 3.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a data storage adapter (1) having a data storage
subsystem that stores both hardened data and soft data in its volatile memory
(5). Upon detecting that its main power supply has experienced a failure, the
data sub-system switches to its temporary power supply (10) to transfer
hardened data from its volatile memory to its nonvolatile memory (6).
When the power returns, the data storage subsystem restores the hardened
data back to the volatile memory, and marks the hardened data therein as
read-only if all of the data cannot be backed up to the nonvolatile memory.
Otherwise, it allows the data to be modified as well. (Spec., ¶¶ [0068],
[0069], [0088], [0089].)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 21 further illustrates the invention as follows:

21. A method of operating a data storage subsystem, said
method comprising:

allocating less than all of a volatile memory for storing
hardened data to be preserved in the event of power interruption
to said data storage subsystem;

Appeal 2010-002061
Application 10/929,321

3
in response to a power loss to said data storage
subsystem, transferring said hardened data from said volatile
memory to a non-volatile memory, wherein said volatile
memory and said non-volatile memory are powered by a battery
during said data transfer; and

in response to a power restore to said data storage
subsystem after said power loss, permitting said hardened data
within said volatile memory only to be read when not all of said
hardened data in said volatile memory are guaranteed
to be backup to said non-volatile memory in case of another
power loss while said battery is being recharged; and

permitting said hardened data within said volatile
memory to be read or written when all of said hardened data in
said volatile memory are guaranteed to be backup to said non-
volatile memory in case of another power loss while said
battery is being recharged.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Blitz US 5,535,399 Jul. 9, 1996
Brant US 5,799,200 Aug. 25, 1998
Kodama JP 58205994A Dec. 1, 1983

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 21, 22, 24, and 35-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kodama
and Blitz.
Appeal 2010-002061
Application 10/929,321

4
2. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kodama, Blitz, and Brant.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the principal Brief, pages 5-7.
Representative Claim 21
Dispositive Issue: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Kodama and Blitz teaches or suggests
placing in read-only status hardened data in volatile memory if all the
hardened data cannot be backed up in a nonvolatile memory in case of
another power failure, otherwise placing the data in read and write status,
as recited claim 21?

Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Kodama and Blitz teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations emphasized above. According to Appellants, Blitz discloses
placing the drive in WRITE PROTECT mode when data is being transferred
from a nonvolatile device to a volatile device, whereas the claim recites a
transfer from the volatile device to the nonvolatile device. (Reply Br. 3.) In
response, the Examiner finds the combination of Kodama and Blitz teaches
or suggest the disputed limitations. (Ans. 7-10.)
On the record before us, we do not agree with the Examiner’s
findings and ultimate conclusion of obviousness. Blitz discloses a solid state
disk drive containing a nonvolatile magnetic disk, which is continuously
Appeal 2010-002061
Application 10/929,321

5
copying data from a volatile disk, and keeps track of data in the volatile
drive that was not copied at the time of a power failure. (Col. 1, ll. 7-11.)
Upon detecting the power interruption, the drive switches over to an
auxiliary power source, and enters the WRITE PROTECT mode to indicate
that it is not yet accessible for read/write operations. (Col. 11, ll. 46-59.)
After all suspect data has been restored, the drive returns to WRITE
ENABLE mode to permit the host to read and write data therein. (Col. 17, ll.
27-67.) We find that while Blitz teaches permitting hardened data in a
volatile memory to be in read-only or read/write statuses, such changes in
the status of the drive are not made in response to determining that such data
are/ are not guaranteed to be backed up to the non-volatile drive in case of
another backup. Rather, they are made as a result of whether the drive has
transitioned from its main power source to an auxiliary power source, and
vice versa. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that Blitz does not cure the
noted deficiencies of Kodama. Because Appellants have shown at least one
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21, we need not address
Appellants’ other arguments. It follows that Appellants have shown error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.

Because claims 22-24 and 35-37 also recite the disputed limitations of
claim 21 above, Appellants have similarly shown error in the Examiner’s
rejection of those claims for the same reasons set forth above.

Appeal 2010-002061
Application 10/929,321

6
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 21-24 and 35-37 as set
forth above.
REVERSED

Vsh