Hoffman, Daniel D. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 15, 2020

14977699 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 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.
14/977,699 12/22/2015 Daniel D. Hoffman DN13-1145 5941
26890 7590 04/15/2020
JAMES M. STOVER
TERADATA US, INC.
P.O. Box 190
Englewood, OH 45322
EXAMINER
WADDY JR, EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2135
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2020 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):
james.stover@teradata.com
michelle.boldman@teradata.com
td.uspto@outlook.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL D. HOFFMAN, WILLIAM T. SANDERS,
SUPEN B. SHAH, and DAVID E. STEINKE
Appeal 2019-000346
Application 14/977,699
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, SCOTT E. BAIN, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–6, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. 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 Teradata US,
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000346
Application 14/977,699
2
BACKGROUND
The Claimed Invention
The invention relates to “data warehouse systems,” and more
particularly, to allocating resources in a mixed solid-state drive (SSD) and
hard disk drive (HDD) storage environment. Spec. ¶ 3. The Specification
refers to the invention as a “hybrid data warehousing platform,” which
“provides the [large] capacity and [low] cost benefits of hard disk drives . . .
while leveraging the performance advantage of [more expensive] solid-state
drives. Id. ¶ 5. The invention does so by “automatically migrating” data to
the appropriate storage disk based on how frequently the data is accessed.
Id. ¶ 6. The Specification explains that frequently-accessed (“hot”) data
demands fast storage, while rarely-accessed (“cold”) data can be stored on
economical, slower disks. Id. ¶¶ 5–6.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and the subject matter in dispute, and reads as follows:
1. A computer system comprising:
a data storage system including:
inexpensive non-volatile storage;
expensive non-volatile storage; and
expensive volatile storage; and
a processor for:
allocating data having access frequencies up to a first
access frequency threshold to said inexpensive non-volatile
storage;
allocating data having access frequencies greater than
said first access frequency value and ranging up to a second
access frequency threshold, to said expensive non-volatile
storage; and
Appeal 2019-000346
Application 14/977,699
3
allocating data having access frequencies greater than
said second access frequency value and which continually
resides in said expensive volatile storage, to said inexpensive
non-volatile storage, whereby said data having access
frequencies greater than said second access frequency value
resides concurrently in both said expensive volatile storage and
said inexpensive non-volatile storage.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).
References
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Harper et al. (“Harper”) US 2010/0199021 A1 Aug. 5, 2010
McHale et al. (“McHale”) US 2012/0246403 A1 Sept. 27, 2012
Olson et al. (“Olson”) US 2015/0286413 A1 Oct. 8, 2015
The Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Olson, McHale, and Harper. Final Act. 3–19.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). On the record before us, Appellant has not persuaded us
of error. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
rejections and in the Examiner’s Answer, and we provide the following for
highlighting and emphasis.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests “allocating data having access frequencies greater than said second
access frequency value and which continually resides in said expensive
volatile storage, to said inexpensive non-volatile storage, whereby said data
Appeal 2019-000346
Application 14/977,699
4
having access frequencies greater than said second access frequency value
resides concurrently in both said expensive volatile storage and said
inexpensive non-volatile storage,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–9;
Reply Br. 2–3. Specifically, Appellant argues that neither Olson nor
McHale teach or suggest data residing concurrently in both volatile and non-
volatile storage, and that Harper does not teach data “contained continuously
[i.e., continually resides] within expensive volatile memory (SRAM).”
Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added). Further, Appellant argues the data
contained within the SRAM of Harper is “not associated with any access
frequency or access frequency range.” Id. We, however, are not persuaded
of error.
The Examiner relies on the combination of Olson, McHale, and
Harper, all of which are directed to memory systems including both volatile
and non-volatile memory, and efficient storage of data. Final Act. 3–10. As
the Examiner finds, all three references disclose storage of data to different
disks based on access frequency. See, e.g., Olson ¶ 30 (“data is stored on
various types of storage devices primarily based on various criteria, such as
. . . frequency of use of the data”); McHale ¶ 12 (“determines which pages
should reside on the SSD tier and which pages should reside on the HDD
tier by measuring the frequency of read and/or write requests to them over
time”); Harper ¶ 44 (“SRAM cache memory . . . provides temporary storage
for data that is accessed repeatedly”).
Regarding the disputed limitation, as the Examiner finds, Harper
discloses moving (allocating) data from “flash memory” to “SRAM cache”
and then to “rotating magnetic disk,” as part of a data recovery from a
“previous shut down due to a power event.” Harper ¶ 59; Ans. 17–20 (citing
Appeal 2019-000346
Application 14/977,699
5
Harper ¶¶ 59–60). Harper discloses that the data is erased from flash
memory once copied to the rotating magnetic disk, but does not indicate it is
erased from SRAM. Harper ¶ 60. Thus, Harper teaches or suggests that, as
in Appellant’s claim 1, at least for some time, data resides “concurrently” in
both volatile memory (RAM) and non-volatile memory (rotating magnetic
disk, i.e., the storage component of hard disk drive 812 in Harper). Id.
Appellant argues that the data in Harper’s SRAM is not “contained”
there “continually,” but as discussed above, Harper teaches that the data is
stored in SRAM at least long enough to copy (allocate) to the rotating
magnetic disk, and not erased thereafter. Neither claim 1 nor Appellant’s
Specification indicate how long “continually” must be, and claim 1 recites
“continually resid[ing] in . . . volatile storage,” which suggests “continually”
only means for some period of time. Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis added); see
also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(claim terms given their “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification”). Moreover, we do not read Harper “in isolation, but
[rather] for what it fairly teaches in combination with the [other] prior art as
a whole,” and both Olson and McHale disclose storing certain data in
expensive volatile storage. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see, e.g., Final Act. 10.
Similarly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the data
in Harper is “not associated with any access frequency or access frequency
range.” Appeal Br. 9. Harper discloses that SRAM cache is used for “data
that is accessed repeatedly,” which suggests a high frequency of access.
Harper ¶ 44. Moreover, as discussed above, the Examiner relies on Harper
in combination with Olson and McHale, both of which teach associating
data with its access frequency in order to assign it appropriately “hot” or
Appeal 2019-000346
Application 14/977,699
6
“cold” storage disks. See, e.g., Olson ¶¶ 30, 52, 56, 102; McHale ¶ 12; see
also In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097 (“Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.”).
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1. We are also unpersuaded regarding
remaining claims 2–6, which are not argued separately. Accordingly, we
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1–6.
SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6 103 Olson, McHale,
Harper
1–6
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–6.
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