Ex Parte Staelin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2015

13321152 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/321, 152 11/17/2011
22879 7590 12/18/2015
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Carl Staelin
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.
82883878 4006
EXAMINER
KESSLER, GREGORY AARON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2015 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARL ST AELIN, GIDI AMIR, RAM DAGAN, and
DAVID BEN OV ADIA
Appeal2014-001641
Application 13/321, 152 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. Appeal Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2014-001641
Application 13/321,152
A. The Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to scheduling access requests
including realtime access requests and non-realtime access requests to an
information storage system. Abstract. Independent claim 1 is representative
and reproduced below, with emphasis added to the disputed elements:
1. A method of scheduling access requests to an
information storage system, the access requests comprising
realtime access requests and non-realtime access requests, the
realtime access requests being associated with respective
completion deadlines, and the method being performed by a
physical data processing device and comprising:
receiving pending ones of the access requests that are
awaiting submission to the information storage system;
tracking outstanding ones of the access requests that
have been submitted to the information storage system and
are awaiting completion by the information storage system;
and
submitting the pending access requests to the information
storage system based on rules that prioritize the submission of
pending access requests such that realtime ones of the
pending access requests and realtime ones of the outstanding
access requests will be serviced by the information storage
system by their associated completion deadlines.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 13-15, and 17-19 as anticipated
by Genduso et al. (US 6,442,648 B 1; Aug. 27, 2002) (hereinafter
"Genduso"). Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2014-001641
Application 13/321,152
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 5, and 6 as unpatentable over
Genduso, in view of Jones et al. (US 5,812,844 A; Sept. 22, 1998)
(hereinafter "Jones"). Ans. 6.
The Examiner rejects claims 7, 16, and 20 as unpatentable over
Genduso, in view of Kang et al. (US 2009/0100433 Al; Apr. 16, 2009)
(hereinafter "Kang"). Ans. 8.
The Examiner rejects claims 8-12 as unpatentable over Genduso, in
view of Kang, and further in view of Jones. Ans. 9.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Genduso fails to teach or suggest "tracking
outstanding ones of the access requests that have been submitted to the
information storage system and are awaiting completion by the information
storage system," as claim 1 requires. Appeal Br. 6-7. We agree with
Appellants that Genduso fails to disclose the disputed limitation. 2
Genduso discloses a data processing system 10 that includes a disk 16
and a disk adapter 28, where the disk adapter 28 includes a scan queue
stored within a memory 46. Genduso 3:42--45, 58-59, 4:38--40. The scan
queue stores requests that are to be submitted to disk 16 for processing. Id.
at 4:40--42. Disk adapter 28 traverses the scan queue and selects the request
that is to be serviced next by disk 16. Id. at 5:30-32. Upon selecting the
request, disk adapter 28 removes the request from the scan queue and
submits the request to disk 16. Id. at 8:35--41.
2 Appellants' arguments raise additional issues, but we do not reach them
because this issue is dispositive of the appeal.
3
Appeal 2014-001641
Application 13/321,152
Claim 1 distinguishes explicitly between "pending ... access requests
that are awaiting submission to the information storage system" and
"outstanding ... access requests that have been submitted to the information
storage system and are awaiting completion by the information storage
system." Further, Appellants' Specification also distinguishes explicitly
between pending access requests and outstanding access requests, as it
defines "[p ]ending access requests" as "access requests that are awaiting
submission to an information storage system" and "[ o ]utstanding access
requests" as "access requests that have been submitted to an information
storage system and are awaiting completion by the information storage
system." Spec. i-f 17 (emphasis added).
In light of the explicit distinction between pending access requests and
outstanding access requests, we agree with Appellants that Genduso' s disk
adapter 28 does not track requests that have been submitted to disk 16 and
are awaiting completion by disk 16. Appeal Br. 6. Instead, disk adapter 28
stores requests that are awaiting submission to disk 16. Genduso 4:40-42.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1. For the same reason, we also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 14 and 17, which recite substantially similar
limitations as claim 1, or dependent claims 2-13, 15, 16, and 18-20.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
bar
4