Ex Parte Soulier et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 6, 2012

10973478 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 6, 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.
10/973,478 10/26/2004 Paul E. Soulier 04-0814 1936
27683 7590 07/09/2012
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
IP Section
2323 Victory Avenue
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
SMITH, GARRETT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/09/2012 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 PAUL E. SOULIER
and BRAD D. BESMER
____________________

Appeal 2010-002638
Application 10/973,478
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002638
Application 10/973,478

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 5, 7-15, and 17-26. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2-4, 6, and 16 have been canceled.
We REVERSE.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a file system
management for efficient write journal entries. (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A system for efficient write journal entry management of
an array of storage devices suitable for being accessed by a
plurality of host computers over a network, comprising:
a processor configured to receive a command to access a
virtual file volume from the plurality of host computers,
wherein the virtual file volume includes a plurality of
data regions;
a volatile memory unit coupled to the processor, the
volatile memory unit including an array of I/O counters,
wherein each I/O counter included in the array of I/O counters
indicates an amount of outstanding host write operations for a
corresponding data region included in the plurality of data
regions;
a non-volatile memory unit coupled to the processor, the
non-volatile memory unit including a plurality of sync state
bits, each of the plurality of sync state bits representing a sync
status of a corresponding data region; and
Appeal 2010-002638
Application 10/973,478

3
wherein the processor is configured for updating the
plurality of sync state bits for write journaling,
wherein a current data region is calculated when a virtual
write I/O operation for the current region is issued and the
processor examines an I/O counter associated with the current
data region to determine whether the current data region is
synchronized.

References
Ichinomiya US 5,550,975 Aug. 27, 1996
Greenfield US 2003/0160893 A1 Aug. 28, 2003
Lubbers US 2003/0187847 A1 Oct. 2, 2003
Kenchammana-
Hosekote
US 2004/0128587 A1 Jul. 1, 2004

Rejections
(1) Claims 1, 5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lubbers and Ichinomiya.
(2) Claims 8, 11-15, and 17-18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lubbers, Ichinomiya, and
Kenchammana-Hosekote.
(3) Claims 9-10 and 19-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lubbers, Ichinomiya, Kenchammana-Hosekote,
and Greenfield.

Appeal 2010-002638
Application 10/973,478

4
ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1, 5, and 7
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Lubbers and
Ichinomiya (Br. 6-8). Specifically, Appellants contend Ichinomiya teaches a
volatile memory unit, data buffer 13,that does not include an array of I/O
counters (Br. 7). Appellants argue, however, in contrast to the teachings of
Ichinomiya, that the volatile memory recited in claim 1 includes an array of
I/O counters.

Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Lubbers and Ichinomiya would have taught or suggested “a volatile memory
unit coupled to the processor, the volatile memory unit including an array of
I/O counters” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We disagree with the Examiner’s findings and reasoning. The
Examiner asserts that since Appellants have not defined “I/O counter”, a
reasonable interpretation is “a set of data used in the execution of the write
operation” (Ans. 16). Thus, according to the Examiner, since the data buffer
contains data in array form to be used in a write operation, “[t]he mere
presence of the data 200 is sufficient to ‘indicate’ a write operation will take
place (combined with the write control table 121)” (Ans. 17).
We find the Examiner’s interpretation to be in error. Although claims
should be interpreted broadly, the terms should also be interpreted
reasonably and consistent with the Specification. The words of the claim are
Appeal 2010-002638
Application 10/973,478

5
to be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with
the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Chef
America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(Ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and
unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular context
changes their meaning, are construed to mean exactly what they say.).
Here, we find the Examiner has not adopted the “plain meaning” of a
counter – an element that counts. Moreover, claim 1 further recites
“wherein each I/O counter included in the array of I/O counters indicates an
amount of outstanding host write operations for a corresponding data region
included in the plurality of data regions” (id.). Therefore, the Examiner has
not shown Ichinomiya teaches “a volatile memory unit including an array of
I/O counters” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner has not shown Lubbers
cures the deficiencies of Ichinomiya.
Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Lubbers and Ichinomiya would have taught or suggested the invention as
recited in independent claim 1 and dependent claims 5 and 7. Therefore, the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Lubbers and Ichinomiya.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 8, 11-15, and 17-18
For the reasons set forth in Issue 1, we again agree with Appellants
that Ichinomiya does not teach or suggest “the I/O counter is stored in a
volatile memory unit” as recited in independent claim 8. The Examiner has
Appeal 2010-002638
Application 10/973,478

6
not shown Lubbers and Kenchammana-Hosekote, taken alone or in proper
combination, cure the deficiencies of Ichinomiya.
Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Lubbers, Ichinomiya, and Kenchammana-Hosekote would have taught or
suggested the invention as recited in independent claim 8 and dependent
claims 11-15 and 17-18. Therefore, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
8, 11-15, and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Lubbers,
Ichinomiya, and Kenchammana-Hosekote.

ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 9-10 and 19-26
For the reasons set forth in Issue 1, we again agree with Appellants
that Ichinomiya does not teach or suggest “the I/O counter is stored in a
random access memory” as recited in independent claim 19. The Examiner
has not shown Lubbers and Greenfield, taken alone or in proper
combination, cure the deficiencies of Ichinomiya.
Claims 20-26 depend from claim 19. Claims 9 and 10 depend from
claim 1.
Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Lubbers, Ichinomiya, Kenchammana-Hosekote, and Greenfield would have
taught or suggested the invention as recited in independent claim 19 and its
dependent claims 20-26, and dependent claims 9-10 which depend from
independent claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9-10
and 19-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Lubbers,
Ichinomiya, Kenchammana-Hosekote, and Greenfield.
Appeal 2010-002638
Application 10/973,478

7

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lubbers and Ichinomiya is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 11-15, and 17-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lubbers, Ichinomiya, and
Kenchammana-Hosekote is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-10 and 19-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lubbers, Ichinomiya, Kenchammana-
Hosekote, and Greenfield is reversed.

REVERSED

msc