Ex Parte Peterson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

13531316 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

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.
13/531,316 06/22/2012 James Peterson FIO-0122-US 1085
91577 7590
Kunzler Law Group
50 W. Broadway
10th Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
12/21/2016 EXAMINER
GORTAYO, DANGELINO N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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):
docket @ kunzlerlaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES PETERSON, EVAN ORME, KEVIN VIGOR, and
MICHAEL ZAPPE
Appeal 2016-002761
Application 13/531,316
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—25. App. Br. I.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action (Final Act.)
mailed December 12, 2014, (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed June 26,
2015, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed November 6, 2015, and
(4) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed January 6, 2016.
Appeal 2016-002761
Application 13/531,316
Invention
Appellants’ invention indexes data of an append-only, log-based
structure. Spec. 12. In particular, the invention maps logical-block
addresses to physical locations on a solid-state storage media. Id. 1168. In
one embodiment, a log-based structure contains an index for reconstructing
this logical-to-physical mapping. Id. 167, 172. Sequentially stored data
can serve as the log. Id. 1162. For instance, the invention stores index data
by sequentially appending data packets to an “append point” of a log-based
structure. Id. If 192. To retrieve the stored index data, the invention uses an
index root (e.g., 660) with pointers to index segments (e.g., 650, 652, 654).
Id. 1204, Figs. 6—7. Because the index data is stored sequentially, corrupted
or lost indices may be reconstructed by addressing the solid-state storage
media in the order that the data was written. Spec. 1167. Claim 1 is
reproduced below with emphasis:
1. A method comprising:
writing a plurality of data packets to a storage medium by
sequentially appending the data packets to an append point of a
log-based structure of the storage medium, the data packets
associated with different logical identifiers belonging to a logical
address space that is independent of physical storage locations
on the storage medium;
writing an index segment associated with the plurality of
data packets to the append point of the log-based structure, the
index segment comprising index entries for determining the
logical identifiers of the data packets; and
recording information on the storage medium, the
information indicating where the index segment is written on the
storage medium.
2
Appeal 2016-002761
Application 13/531,316
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Claims 1, 2, 4—20, and 22—24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eom and Hung. Final Act. 3—16.
Claims 3,21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eom, Hung, and Post. Final Act. 16—19.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER EOM AND HUNG
The Examiner finds that Eom discloses every recited element of claim
1, except for the recited index segment comprising index entries for
determining the logical identifiers of the data packets. Final Act. 3^4. The
Examiner relies on Hung to teach this feature when combined with Eom in
concluding that claim 1 would have been obvious. Id. at 4—5. In this
proposed combination, the Examiner finds that Eom’s log blocks correspond
to the recited data packets. Id. at 3. Furthermore, the Examiner finds that
Eom’s log block mapping-table entries correspond to the recited index
segment. Id. at 4.
Appellants argue that Eom does not write an index segment to the
append point where the data packets are appended. App. Br. 7; Reply
Br. 2—3. According to Appellants, Eom’s log-block mapping table is
separate from the log blocks. App. Br. 7. In Appellants’ view, Eom does
not write an index segment to the append point—even under the Examiner’s
Hung
Eom
Post
US 8,239,619 B2 Aug. 7, 2012
US 8,261,010 B2 Sept. 4, 2012
US 8,478,796 B2 July 2, 2013
The Rejections
Contentions
3
Appeal 2016-002761
Application 13/531,316
mapping—because Eom writes the mapping-table entries (“index
segments”) and log blocks (“data packets”) to separate points. Id.
Issue
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Eom would have taught or suggested writing data packets and the
associated index segments to the same append point of a log-based
structure?
Analysis
We begin by noting that Hung was not relied upon to teach the
limitation at issue. See Final Act. 3—5. Accordingly, we confine our
discussion to Eom.
Claim 1 calls for, in pertinent part, “an append point of a log-based
structure.” Appellants use a log-based structure to reconstruct a mapping
from logical to physical memory. Spec. 1167. Sequentially stored data can
serve as this log. Id. 1162. One embodiment appends data to the head of
the log. Id. 1160. In another example, the log is a logical ring-like data
structure. Id. 1149. In this example, new data is appended to the log such
that previously used, physical capacity is reused in a circular manner. Id.
Although these examples inform our construction, the Specification does not
define “an append point” to limit our interpretation to these particular
embodiments.
The Examiner interprets the append point as “the available, free block
of data in a memory device.” Ans. 5. Given this interpretation, the
Examiner finds that Eom appends data to the log-based structure.
4
Appeal 2016-002761
Application 13/531,316
Id. at 5 (citing Eom 5:53—59). Specifically, the Examiner finds that an
append point is “the location” in Eom’s sequential log block where log
blocks (“data packets”) and mapping-table entries (“index segments”) are
written. Id. at 4—5; Final Act. 3^4.
In claim 1, the antecedent basis for “the append point” in the “writing
an index segment” step is the append point in the previously recited “writing
data packets” step. That is, claim 1 requires writing data packets and the
associated index segments to the same append point. The Examiner finds
“the append point is defined as a location in the log-based data structure”
(Ans. 4) or “the available, free block of data in a memory device” {id. at 5).
Using this understanding, we agree with Appellants’ argument that Eom
does not write log blocks (“data packets”) and mapping-table entries (“index
segments”) to the same append point. See App. Br. 7.
Specifically, Eom discloses a flash-memory device including physical
flash-memory data blocks and a flash translation layer (FTL). Eom 6:16—24.
The FTL maps logical addresses to physical memory addresses. Id. The
physical memory’s data blocks are classified into log blocks and data blocks.
Id. at 9:16—19. Log blocks store write requests for previously written data
blocks. See id. at 11:1—3. So if the system generates an update request on a
page written in a data block, the system puts the page’s write request in a log
block to fulfill the update request. Id. To record this activity, Eom’s
log-block mapping table associates the log block to the corresponding data
block. Id. at 11:4—15. In particular, the log-block mapping table’s entries
hold a logical log-block number (LLBN) and the corresponding logical
block number (LBN). Id.', see also id., Figs. 11H—1II (showing the data
5
Appeal 2016-002761
Application 13/531,316
packets (e.g., pi—p3) and log blocks (e.g., L0—L3) as well as the log-block
mapping table to the right).
The Examiner has not shown that Eom writes log blocks entries (“data
packets”) and log block mapping-table entries (“index segments”) to the
same append point. See Final Act. 3^4. Rather, the Examiner’s cited
example shows that Eom’s log blocks and mapping-table entries are written
to separate data structures. See Ans. 7 (citing Eom 14:33—40, Fig. 11H).
For example, Eom’s Figure 11H shows a log block having blocks L0
through L3. Eom, Fig. 11H. The incoming write request causes an update
to pages p5, p6, and p7. See id. Eom writes the log data (“data packet”) to
the next available log block LI. See id., Fig. 1II; see also id. at 14:41—46.
Yet, Eom writes the table entry (“index segment”) to the second row of the
log-block mapping table—a different, free block. See id., Fig. 1II. That is,
Eom fails to teach “writing an index segment... to the append point of the
log-based structure” even under the Examiner’s interpretation of the recited
append point. See Ans. 5.
Granted, the log block mapping table has entries for log blocks (e.g.,
L0—LI) in its table. See Eom, Figs. 11H—I (e.g., L0 and LI in the LLBN’s
(logical log block number) column); see also Ans. 7 (reproducing Eom’s
Fig. 11H and discussing “a corresponding association between the log block
number and logical log block number in a log block mapping table.”) Yet,
this relationship between log blocks and the log block mapping table does
not establish sufficiently that the data packets and index segments are
written to the same append point as recited.
6
Appeal 2016-002761
Application 13/531,316
To the extent that the Examiner interprets an entire storage area as the
recited append point (Ans. 6), we find that this interpretation is unreasonably
broad.
As best understood, the Examiner also presents an interpretation
where the combination of (1) log blocks in memory and (2) the FLT that
contains a log-block mapping table are the recited log-based structure, and
thus both the data packets and index segment are written to points or
locations within this structure. See id. But as recited, the append point is
“of a log-based structure.” In other words, claim 1 requires that the append
point must be a point or location in the structure—not the entire structure
itself. As mapped by the Examiner, the recited append point and the recited
log-based structure are one and the same. See Ans. 4—6. Such an
interpretation by the Examiner {id. at 4, 6) is unreasonably broad because
Eom’s entire storage area for the log-based structure cannot be mapped to
both the recited append point and the recited log-based structure itself.
Because Appellants’ argument regarding the recited append point is
dispositive (see App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2—3), we need not reach Appellants’
remaining arguments. See App. Br. 7—13; Reply Br. 3—7.
Given the record, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the
rejection of (1) independent claim 1, (2) independent claims 19 and 23,
which recite commensurate limitations, and (3) dependent claims 2, 4—15,
20, 22, and 24 for similar reasons.
Claims 16—18
We also do not sustain the rejection of claim 16 for the same reasons
as explained in relation to claim 1. Claim 16 is not separately argued.
7
Appeal 2016-002761
Application 13/531,316
App. Br. 7—9. However, we note that, unlike claim 1, claim 16 writes data
packets by sequentially appending the packets to “one or more append points
of one or more log-based structures.” But similar to claim 1, claim 16 writes
the index segments to “one or more of the append points of the one or more
log-based structures” (emphasis added). That is, the antecedent basis for the
append points where the index segments are written are the append points
for the plurality of data packets.
Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that
Eom discloses these append points in the rejection of independent claim 16,
as well as dependent claims 17 and 18, for similar reasons to those discussed
above in connection with claim 1. See App. Br. 7.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER EOM, HUNG, AND POST
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims
3,21, and 25 for the same reasons discussed above in connection with
independent claims 1,19, and 23. The additional reference, Post, was not
relied upon to teach the append point, which as stated above is missing from
Eom, and, thus, does not cure the deficiency explained previously given the
record. See Final Act. 16—19.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—25 under § 103.
REVERSED
8