Pure Storage, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 26, 202014454537 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/454,537 08/07/2014 John D. Davis P70479 1220US.1 4904 120626 7590 08/26/2020 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP/Pure Storage Attn: IP Docketing PO Box 7037 Atlanta, GA 30357-0037 EXAMINER KNAPP, JUSTIN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2112 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/26/2020 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): ipdocketing@wbd-us.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN D. DAVIS, JOHN HAYES, ZHANGXI TAN, HARI KANNAN, and NENAD MILADINOVIC Appeal 2019-003585 Application 14/454,537 Technology Center 2100 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20, which are all of the 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 Pure Storage as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-003585 Application 14/454,537 2 TECHNOLOGY The application relates to “adjustable error correction in a storage cluster.” Spec. Abstract. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at issue emphasized: 1. A method for adjustable error correction, comprising: determining health of a plurality of storage nodes in a storage cluster, wherein a plurality of authorities is located within the plurality of storage nodes, each authority owning a range of user data, and wherein two authorities of the plurality of authorities are located within a first storage node of the plurality of storage nodes; adjusting a variable read time supported by one or more flash dies in nonvolatile memory of the storage cluster to increase read reliability, based on the health of the plurality of storage nodes; and adjusting, by one or more authorities of the two authorities, erasure coding based on the health of the plurality of storage nodes. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art references: Name Number / Title Date Colgrove US 2012/0079318 A1 Mar. 29, 2012 Smith US 2003/0037299 A1 Feb. 20, 2003 Solaris Solaris Volume Manager Administration Guide, Chapter 4, “Multi-Owner Disk Set Concepts” 2010 Suzuki US 2013/0238836 A1 Sept. 12, 2013 Yoon US 2009/0144598 A1 June 4, 2009 Appeal 2019-003585 Application 14/454,537 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner makes the following rejections: Claims Statute Basis Final Act. 1–20 § 112(a) Written description 2 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15–17, 19, 20 § 103 Colgrove, Solaris, Suzuki 4 2, 11, 18 § 103 Colgrove, Solaris, Suzuki, Yoon 10 8, 14 § 103 Colgrove, Solaris, Suzuki, Smith 11 ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding the limitation “adjusting, by one or more authorities of the two authorities, erasure coding,” as recited in claim 1, lacks sufficient written description support? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding Solaris teaches or suggests “each authority owning a range of user data” and “two authorities of the plurality of authorities are located within a first storage node of the plurality of storage nodes,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS § 112(a): Written Description Claim 1 recites “adjusting, by one or more authorities of the two authorities, erasure coding.” The issue is whether the Specification supports adjusting by authorities or whether it merely discloses authorities “assist” in the process. In particular, the Specification discloses: Authorities 168 control how and where data is stored in the non- volatile solid-state storages 152 in some embodiments. This control assists in determining which type of erasure coding scheme is applied to the data . . . . Spec. ¶ 25 (emphasis added). Appeal 2019-003585 Application 14/454,537 4 Based on this disclosure, Appellant argues that “the authorities play a causative role in controlling, setting and adjusting erasure coding.” Appeal Br. 5. “The premise that one operator performs an action with the assistance of another operator does not deny the other operator a causative role in performing the action, but instead reinforces the causative role each operator has in performing the action.” Id. at 6. However, we agree with the Examiner that the Specification discloses “[a]uthorities 168 . . . are implemented . . . for example as lists or other data structures stored in memory.” Spec. ¶ 25. “In other words, ‘authorities’ are just a format for a collection of data” and “[d]ata, in general, cannot ‘adjust’ anything by itself let alone ‘adjust erasure coding’ as claimed.” Ans. 4. Contrary to Appellant’s analogy, this is not an instance where a team of operators “adjusts” such that each member of the team can be said to “adjust.” Here, a “list” or “other data structure” is not itself an operator but rather merely a tool that “assists” the operator (e.g., a list that the operator refers to). Id.; see also Spec. ¶ 50 (“Fig. 7 is a flow diagram . . . . Actions of the method can be performed by a processor, such as the CPU of a storage node or the controller of a non-volatile solid-state storage. . . . Erasure coding is set based on the health of the flash memory, in an action 704.”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the application’s disclosure fails to reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the claims as presently written as of the effective filing date. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 112(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–20, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 9; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2019-003585 Application 14/454,537 5 § 103: Obviousness Claim 1 recites “each authority owning a range of user data” and “two authorities of the plurality of authorities are located within a first storage node of the plurality of storage nodes.” The Examiner states, “the Examiner was not attempting to assert Official Notice but rather make a general statement ‘authorities’, i.e. lists or other data structures . . . are well-known. As proof of this, the Solaris art was implemented as a secondary reference . . . .” Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted). In Solaris, “the multiple boxes of programming code” “represent[] ‘authorities’, i.e. data structures, (e.g. ‘multi-owner’ seen in the code boxes) that ‘own’ ranges of data (represented by ‘nodeone’ or ‘nodetwo’, for example, in the code boxes[)].” Id. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “[o]wnership of a disk set is not the same as ownership of a range of data.” Appeal Br. 11. Although the Specification may give examples of a “range of user data” being measured in smaller units (e.g., “inode numbers” or “segment numbers”), the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a range of user data” is not limited to such examples. E.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”). Nevertheless, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner fails to sufficiently explain how authorities are taught or suggested by Solaris’ nodes or owners of multi-owner disk sets. Appeal Br. 11. Solaris discloses that “[e]ach multi-owner disk set is associated with a list of nodes” and “[t]hese nodes share ownership of the disk set.” Solaris 1. Appeal 2019-003585 Application 14/454,537 6 Solaris further discloses, “Nodes are the physical machines that are part of a Sun Cluster system.” Id. Solaris’ nodes cannot be the claimed “authorities” because that would fail to meet the limitation “two authorities [i.e., Solaris’ nodes] . . . are located within a first storage node.” The Examiner states that “the code represents ‘authorities,’” but the Examiner fails to explain sufficiently how there are “two authorities [i.e., codes]” or whether those two codes “are located within a first storage node.” The Examiner does not rely upon the additional references Yoon or Smith to cure the deficiencies discussed above. Accordingly, given the record before use, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1–20. OUTCOME The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) / Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 112(a) Written description 1–20 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15– 17, 19, 20 103 Colgrove, Solaris, Suzuki 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15–17, 19, 20 2, 11, 18 103 Colgrove, Solaris, Suzuki, Yoon 2, 11, 18 8, 14 103 Colgrove, Solaris, Suzuki, Smith 8, 14 OVERALL 1–20 TIME TO RESPOND No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.36(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation