Ex Parte Olsen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 25, 2012

10674926 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CLAUS MICHAEL OLSEN, FREDERICK DOUGLIS,
MARCEL-CATALIN ROSU, and THOMAS RICHARD HILDNER
____________

Appeal 2010-003719
Application 10/674,926
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003719
Application 10/674,926

2
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 21, 22, 24-31, 33, 37, and 38 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a).
We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to an information processing system
with a non-volatile storage hierarchy.
Claim 21 is illustrative:
21. An information processing system comprising:

first and second levels of a non-volatile storage hierarchy, wherein
accessing information in the first level consumes more energy than
accessing information in the second level; and

a processor configured for writing information to the second level of
storage based on energy-conserving criteria, wherein the energy-conserving
criteria comprise system state information, and wherein said system state
information is selected from a type of energy source powering the system.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 21, 22, 24-26, 29-31, 33, 37, and 38 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Publication 2004/0255283 A1
(Rudelic) and U.S. Patent No. 6,836,824 B1 (Mirov).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Rudelic and Mirov and U.S. Publication 2003/0009705 A1 (Thelander).
Appeal 2010-003719
Application 10/674,926

3
The rejection of claim 32 as unpatentable over Rudelic and Mirov
and U.S. Patent No. 6,029,249 (Atkinson) has been withdrawn by the
Examiner.
The rejection of claims 34 and 35 as unpatentable over Rudelic and
Mirov and U.S. Patent No. 6,415,359 B1 (Kimura) has been withdrawn by
the Examiner.

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that in paragraph [0046] Rudelic discloses first
and second levels of a non-volatile storage hierarchy, where accessing
information in the first level consumes more energy than accessing
information in the second level (i.e., a second high-performance flash
memory has a higher rate of power consumption than a first lower
performing flash memory). (Ans. 4).1 According to the Examiner, in
paragraphs [0017] and [0046] Rudelic discloses a processor configured to
write information to the second level of storage based on system state
information including energy conserving criteria. (Ans. 4-5). The processor
executes code to migrate minimally used portions of the operating system
off the first flash memory. (Ans. 12). The Examiner admits that Rudelic is
silent on the claimed energy-conserving criteria, which comprises system

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed on June 8,
2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed on September 18, 2009; and (3) the
Reply Brief filed on November 17, 2009.
Appeal 2010-003719
Application 10/674,926

4
state information selected from a type of energy source powering the system.
Instead, the Examiner relies on column 21, lines 19-57 and Figure 18 of
Mirov, which discloses levels of power, which the Examiner contends
teaches the claimed energy source. (Ans. 5).
Appellants contend that Mirov teaches a variable power supply that
can be adjusted according to the requirements of the system, but does not
control storage of information according to the power available. (App. Br.
4). Appellants further contend that Mirov teaches the opposite of the
claimed subject matter, i.e., writing information to a lower energy
consuming level of storage based on the type of energy source powering the
system, such that when the energy source produces a low level of energy, the
level of storage used is one that consumes less energy. (App. Br. 4-5).
Appellants argue that Mirov does not suggest saving energy by storing
information in a lower energy consuming level of memory based on the type
of energy source powering the system. (Reply Br. 2).

ISSUE
Does the combination of Rudelic and Mirov disclose or suggest
storing information in different nonvolatile memories which consume
different levels of energy depending upon the type of energy source
powering the system?

Appeal 2010-003719
Application 10/674,926

5
ANALYSIS
Rudelic discloses adaptively storing system code in nonvolatile
storage in accordance with a performance metric, such as response time to
an access request or the rate of power consumption. ¶[0046]. Rudelic also
discloses code profiler 89 may be especially valuable for systems with
memories of varying performance ¶[0044] and causes the storage of
installed code objects to be optimized on the system. ¶ [0045]. In that
context, Rudelic discloses that the code profiler 89 facilitates a code
manager 80 migrating minimally used portions of an operating system and
applications from valuable high-performance flash memory. ¶[0046].
The crux of Appellants’ disagreement with the Examiner concerns the
disclosure in Mirov. As Appellants note, Mirov describes a system in which
a power supply is selectively controllable to provide varying levels of
current or power depending on the varying levels of system activity. (Col.
21, ll. 20-29). When the system is idle or performing processing that
requires few resources, the power provided to the system is lower than when
the system is more active or consuming more resources. Id. It is undisputed
that Mirov does not teach a processor that controls the writing of
information. (Ans. 12).
Rudelic discloses selecting from nonvolatile storage options in
accordance with a performance metric. However, in our view the energy
source powering the system at any given time (e.g., AC line power or battery
power) is more appropriately categorized as system state information rather
Appeal 2010-003719
Application 10/674,926

6
than a performance metric. Mirov merely teaches increasing or decreasing
the amount of power available to the system depending on the intensity of
activity in the system. Mirov does not teach or suggest the system adapting
itself to accommodate a more or less capable power source. Thus, we are
not persuaded that the combination of the references teaches an information
processing system with first and second levels of nonvolatile storage in
which the processor writes information into the second, lower energy
consuming level of the hierarchy based on energy conserving criteria
including the type of energy source powering the system. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as well the
rejections of claims 22, 24-31, and 33 which depend from claim 21. Since
similar limitations are recited in independent claims 37 and 38, we also
reverse those rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons as
claim 21.

CONCLUSION
We conclude that the combination of Rudelic and Mirov does not
disclose or suggest storing information in different nonvolatile memories
which consume different levels of energy depending upon the type of energy
source powering the system.
ORDER
The rejection of claims 21, 22, 24-26, 29-31, 33, 37, and 38 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rudelic in view of Mirov is reversed.
Appeal 2010-003719
Application 10/674,926

7
The rejection of claims 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Rudelic in view of Mirov and in further view of Thelander is reversed.

REVERSED

rwk