GRUBE, GARY W. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2020

13252418 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2020)

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.
13/252,418 10/04/2011 GARY W. GRUBE CS00606 6521
89322 7590 09/30/2020
Garlick & Markison (PST)
100 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000
Austin, TX 78701
EXAMINER
LE, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2020 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):
MMURDOCK@TEXASPATENTS.COM
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARY W. GRUBE and TIMOTHY W. MARKISON
Appeal 2019–004174
Application 13/252,418
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6 and 8–13. Claims 7 and 14–20 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
International Business Machines Corp. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004174
Application 13/252,418

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate generally to computing systems and more
particularly to data storage solutions within such computing systems. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method by a computing device, the method comprises:
receiving a retrieval request for a file stored in one or more
memory devices;
accessing a data location table;
determining whether the file is being converted from a
redundant array of independent disks (“RAID”) storage format
to a dispersed error coding storage format, wherein the
determining is at least partially based on a migration indicator,
and further wherein the migration indicator indicates that the file
is being migrated;
when the file is being converted from RAID format to the
dispersed error coding storage format, identifying a first portion
of the file that has been converted to the dispersed error coding
storage format and a second portion of the file that is currently
in the RAID storage format, wherein conversion of the first
portion of the file from the RAID format to the dispersed error
coding storage format includes retrieving at least part of the first
portion of the file from a first location in the memory devices
prior to the conversion and storing the at least part of the first
portion of the file in a different location in the memory devices
following the conversion, and wherein the at least part of the first
portion of the file is, at least in part, an entry in the data location
table;
retrieving, from the memory devices, the first portion of
the file as a plurality of sets of encoded data slices in accordance
with the dispersed error coding storage format;
retrieving, from the memory devices, the second portion
of the file in accordance with the RAID format; and
reconstructing the file from the retrieved first portion and
the retrieved second portion.
Appeal 2019-004174
Application 13/252,418

3
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix) (disputed limitations emphasized).
REFERENCES
The references2 relied upon as prior art the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Wilson US 2005/0108304 A1 May 19, 2005
Lacapra US 2006/0167838 A1 July 27, 2006
Beary US 7,296,024 B2 Nov. 13, 2007
Julie Bellance, A cost-effective approach for petabyte storage systems-
Strategic shift from RAID to dispersal, Network World (2010) (“Network
World”)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–4 and 8–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beary, Wilson and Network World. Final Act. 6–14.
Claim 5, 6, 12, and 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Beary, Wilson, Network World, and Lacapra. Final
Act. 14–15.
ANALYSIS3
In rejecting the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
Examiner concludes the claims would have been obvious over the combined
teachings of Beary, Wilson, and Network World. Final Act. 3–8. Relevant
to the issues raised by Appellant, the Examiner finds Beary is the primary
reference teaching or at least suggesting the disputed limitations. Final
Act. 6–7. The Examiner further finds that although Beary teaches migrating
data between disparate storage platforms, Wilson teaches migrating data

2 We identify the prior art references according to their first named inventor.
3 The Examiner has withdrawn his rejection of claims 1–6 and 8–13 rejected
under § 101. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-004174
Application 13/252,418

4
between two disparate storage platforms, while allowing a user access to the
data. Final Act. 7–8.
Appellant first argues the disputed limitation “migration indicator” is
not taught by Wilson. Appeal Br. 7–8. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument because Appellant is arguing the references separately. The
Examiner cites Beary for teaching this limitation. Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant next argues the Examiner has erred because “the prior art
fails to disclose both a) determining, based on a migration pointer, whether a
file is being migrated and b) providing access to both the portion of the file
in the RAID storage format and the portion already converted to the
dispersed error coding storage format.” Appeal Br. 7, Reply Br. 3.
We disagree with Appellant’s argument (a) because it is not
commensurate with the claim language. Claim 1 does not recite a
“migration pointer,” instead it recites a “migration indicator.” We agree
with the Examiner’s conclusion that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
a “migration indicator” is something indicating that a file is being migrated
and it may be anything that indicates migration of such requested data.
Ans. 6. Appellant’s Specification does not provide a definition for the term
“migration indicator” that precludes or is otherwise inconsistent with the
Examiner’s interpretation of the phrase.
The Examiner maps the phrase “migration indicator” to Beary’s
migration triggers which trigger data migration. Id., citing Beary at col. 3,
lines 66–67; col. 4, lines 1–4; col. 5, lines 67; col. 6, lines 1–5. We agree
with the Examiner and find Beary’s determining whether a trigger event
occurred, and then migrating the data if the trigger event occurred, teaches
or at least suggests the disputed limitation “wherein the determining is at
Appeal 2019-004174
Application 13/252,418

5
least partially based on a migration indicator, and further wherein the
migration indicator indicates that the file is being migrated.” Ans. 6, Beary
Col. 6, ll. 21–42.
We also disagree with Appellant’s argument (b) “providing access to
both the portion of the file in the RAID storage format and the portion
already converted to the dispersed error coding storage format” because
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claim 1 does not recite this argued phrase “providing access . . . .” We are
also not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because Appellant is arguing
the references separately. Appellant argues Beary does not disclose this
limitation, but the Examiner instead cites Wilson and Network for teaching
or suggesting that the first storage device/database is using RAID storage
format and the second storage device/database is using a dispersed error
coded storage format. Ans. 7.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings because Wilson’s method,
enabling a user to access data from the source volume and also move off the
source volume at substantially the same time, where the migration of the
files is done track-by-track or bit-by-bit, teaches or at least suggests the
disputed limitation of providing access to both the portion of the filed in the
RAID storage format and the portion already converted to the dispersed
error coding storage format. Wilson ¶¶ 9, 13, 19. We also agree with the
Examiner’s further findings that Network World’s teaching migrating from a
RAID storage form to a dispersed encoded storage format, where only a
subset of slices are needed to reconstitute the original data, at least suggests
the disputed limitation. Final Act. 8, citing Network World at pp. 2–5.
Appeal 2019-004174
Application 13/252,418

6
Because we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of error, we
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 8 as being unpatentable
over Beary, Wilson and Network World.
Remaining Claims
Appellant does not advance separate arguments for any other claim.
As such, we also sustain the rejections of the remaining dependent claims
under § 103.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4 and 8–11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Beary, Wilson, and Network
World.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5, 6, 12, and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Beary, Wilson, Network World,
and Lacapra.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8–11 103(a) Beary, Wilson,
Network World
1–4, 8–11
5, 6, 12, 13 103(a) Beary, Wilson,
Network World,
Lacapra
5, 6, 12, 13
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8–13

Appeal 2019-004174
Application 13/252,418

7
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED