Ex Parte Won et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2013

11346377 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YOU-JIP WON, JUN-SEOK SHIM, and
BOLDYREV SERGUEI
____________________

Appeal 2011-005943
Application 11/346,377
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-005943
Application 11/346,377
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Illustrative Claim
Appellants’ invention relates to analyzing a load feature of a data
transfer command in a disk transfer system and determining whether the
load corresponds to a multimedia application. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation italicized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for determining a type of a load of a data
transfer command in a system for transferring data one of to a
disk sector and from a disk sector according to a data transfer
command provided from a disk driver, comprising:
(a) extracting, from the disk driver, a plurality of data
transfer commands for one of transferring the data to the disk
sector and transferring the data from the disk sector, the data
transfer command among the plurality of data transfer
commands, and generating a set of data transfer commands
including the extracted plurality of data transfer commands;
(b) analyzing a load feature of the set of data transfer
commands based on a load feature of the data transfer
commands in the set of data transfer commands, the load
feature comprising a trace of the plurality of data transfer
commands in the set of data transfer commands that indicates a
number of sectors delivered to the disk by the plurality of data
transfer commands according to the time when the plurality of
data transfer commands access the disk;
(c) determining whether the load of the data transfer
command corresponds to a multimedia application based on the
analyzed load feature of the set of data transfer commands.
Appeal 2011-005943
Application 11/346,377
3
Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1–8 and 11–19 under 35 U.S.C §102(e) as anticipated by
Hendel (US 2007/0136496 A1) (Ans. 3–6); and
Claims 9, 10, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hendel and Smith (US 2003/0227268 A1) (Ans. 7).
Issue
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.” filed Aug. 17, 2010) and Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.” filed Jan. 18, 2011). We refer to the Briefs and the
Answer (“Ans.” mailed Nov. 16, 2010) for the respective positions of
Appellants and the Examiner.
The dispositive issue before us is whether Hendel describes
“analyzing a load . . . comprising a trace . . . that indicates a number of
sectors delivered to the disk . . . according to the time when the plurality of
data transfer commands access the disk” as recited in claim 1 (hereinafter,
“the disputed limitation”).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner cites paragraphs 10, 25, and 29 of Hendel for the
disputed limitation. Ans. 4. Hendel describes placing I/O streams into
queues based on arrival time. Periodic I/O requests (e.g., from multimedia
applications) are queued in earliest-deadline-first (EDF) order, and aperiodic
requests are queued in first-in-first-out (FIFO) order (¶¶ 10, 25). The
Examiner finds that an I/O stream’s “specific performance parameters,” such
as a deadline for EDF classification, meets the claimed “load feature” and
that a grouping of periodic requests having the same arrival rate meets the
Appeal 2011-005943
Application 11/346,377
4
claimed “trace.” Ans. 4 (referring to Appellants’ Specification, which
describes a “trace” as “[a] set of input/output commands.” See, e.g., ¶ 33).
The Examiner finds that “having a trace automatically implied ‘a number of
sectors. . . .’”(Emphases omitted) Ans. 4
Appellants argue Hendel describes a scheduling algorithm (the EDF
algorithm) that filters requests into queues based on a prior determination of
whether the streams are periodic or aperiodic. App. Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 4–
6. Accordingly, Appellants argue, Hendel does not describe the disputed
limitation. Id.
We are persuaded the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded by
the Examiner that the cited disclosure of Hendel describes a “trace . . . that
indicates a number of sectors delivered to the disk.” At best, Hendel
describes storing data in different memory areas. However, the number of
sectors associated therewith is not readily ascertainable from Hendel’ s
disclosure. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1, nor of claim 11, which includes a similar recitation, nor of claims
2–10 and 12–20, which depend from claims 1 and 11, respectively.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 is reversed.

REVERSED

tj