Seagate Technology LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 15, 2021

2020004072 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2021)

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.
15/597,881 05/17/2017 Phillip R. Colline STL072858 8571
73462 7590 09/15/2021
Hall Estill - Seagate Technology LLC
100 North Broadway, Suite 2900
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820
EXAMINER
YU, JAE UN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2135
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2021 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
katie.jarvis@seagate.com
okcipdocketing@hallestill.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PHILLIP R. COLLINE and MICHAEL BARRELL
____________________

Appeal 2020-004072
Application 15/597,881
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–12 and 14–20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.3
The claims are directed to a network data storage buffer system and its
method of operation, the network data storage buffer system including

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is Seagate Technology, LLC.
(Appeal Br. 1.)
2 Claim 13 has been withdrawn from consideration. (See Final Act. 1.)
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed May 17, 2017, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed June 6, 2019, the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.”) filed November 27, 2019, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed March 11, 2020, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed May 11,
2020.
Appeal 2020-004072
Application 15/597,881

2
multiple data storage devices each having a device buffer, and a “network
buffer and buffer circuit . . . in a network controller with the buffer circuit
arranged to divide and store data associated with a data access request in the
network buffer and the device buffer of [a] first data storage device.” (Spec.
1:2–6; Abstract; Title.) Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
8. A method comprising:
connecting a network controller to separate first and
second data storage devices, each data storage device having a
device buffer, the network controller comprising a network
buffer and a buffer circuit;
dividing data associated with a write request from a host
with the buffer circuit into first and second data packets;
bypassing the network buffer to store the second data
packet in the device buffer of the first data storage device as
directed by the buffer circuit; and
storing the first data packet in the network buffer as
directed by the buffer circuit.
(Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App).)

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Osborne et al. US 5,751,951 May 12, 1998
(“Osborne”)

Brockmann US 2008/0040541 A1 Feb. 14, 2008
(“Brockmann”)

Mehta et al. US 2015/0324124 A1 Nov. 12, 2015
(“Mehta”)
Appeal 2020-004072
Application 15/597,881

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1–4, 8–12, and 14–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Brockmann in view of Osborne. (Final Act. 2–4.)
Claims 5–7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Brockmann in view of Osborne and Mehta. (Final Act. 4–
5.)

ANALYSIS
With respect to the rejection of claims 1–4, 8–12, and 14–20,
Appellant argues the claims with respect to independent method claim 8 as
the illustrative claim. Appeal Br. 4. Independent claim 1 contains similar
argued limitations. With respect to illustrative independent claim 8, the
Examiner finds Brockmann teaches a network controller (the RAID
controller in Brockmann’s Fig. 1) connected to separate first and second data
storage devices (Brockmann’s memory devices 150), as claimed. (Final Act.
2 (citing Brockmann Fig. 1), 3 (referencing the “claims rejection above” for
the rejection of claim 8).) The Examiner acknowledges “Brockmann does
not disclose expressly buffers, a buffer circuit arranged to divide and store
data associated with a data access request in the buffers, and bypassing a
buffer.” (Id. at 2.) The Examiner then finds “Osborne discloses such
features in figure 3A.” (Id.) In the Answer, the Examiner elaborates:
Osborne discloses in the abstract, storing a data packet in a buffer
“chunk” or “segment” based on the packet size. For example, if
a buffer “segment” is too small to accommodate a data packet,
Appeal 2020-004072
Application 15/597,881

4
then the “segment” is “bypassed” to store the data packet in
another buffer “chunk” or “segment.”

(Ans. 6.) We do not agree.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that
Osborne and Brockmann, alone or in combination, teach or suggest
“bypassing the network buffer to store the second data packet in the device
buffer of the first data storage device as directed by the buffer circuit,” as
recited in claim 8. (Appeal Br. 4–7; Reply Br. 1–2.) As Appellant explains,
Osborne filters all data from a host through buffers of a network controller.
(Appeal Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 2.) Buffering data through buffers of Osborne’s
network controller does not teach bypassing the network controller’s
network buffer, as required by claim 8. (Appeal Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 2.)
More particularly, Osborne stores the host’s data in the buffers (RX block
157 and TX block 155) of a NIC chip (network interface card chip) 154 of a
network interface card 150, such that
[Osborne’s] buffering techniques . . . each exclusively employ
the RX and/or TX portions of the NIC chip prior to any storage
of data in the local memory.
The ordinary artisan would identify that the RX/TX
portions of an NIC chip in Osborne corresponds exclusively to
the claimed network buffer. . . . [and] conclude that Osborne is
utterly silent with respect to bypassing a network buffer to store
a portion of data access request in a buffer of a data storage
device, as claimed.

(Appeal Br. 5–6 (emphases added) (citing Osborne cols. 9–14 and 17–23,
Figs. 3A and 6–14); see also Osborne 27:40–45 and 28:28–31 (providing
that the storage buffers are part of “[a] network interface for the transmission
Appeal 2020-004072
Application 15/597,881

5
of frames of information from a host computer over a network, said interface
having one or more buffers, a linked list of buffers”).)
We, therefore, agree with Appellant that Osborne’s transport of data
through the circuit elements shown in Figure 3A does not teach “bypassing
the network buffer [of a network controller connected to separate first and
second data storage devices] to store the second data packet in the device
buffer of the first data storage device as directed by the buffer circuit [of the
network controller],” as recited in claim 8.
We further note, the Examiner’s rebuttal of Appellant’s arguments on
the basis that “[an] intention of originally storing the ‘second data packet’ in
the ‘network buffer’ is not recited in the claim” (see Ans. 6), overlooks the
“bypassing” limitation that is explicitly recited in claim 8. That is, claim 8
explicitly requires bypassing the network controller’s buffer to store a
portion of the data (associated with a write request from a host) in the device
buffer of a data storage device that is separated from the network controller.
We are also unpersuaded by Examiner’s alternative explanation that
Osborne teaches “bypassing” because
Osborne discloses in the abstract, storing a data packet in a buffer
“chunk” or “segment” based on the packet size. For example, if
a buffer “segment” is too small to accommodate a data packet,
then the “segment” is “bypassed” to store the data packet in
another buffer “chunk” or “segment.”

(See Ans. 6.) A detailed review of Osborne reveals that Osborne does not
bypass “a buffer ‘segment’ [that] is too small to accommodate a data packet
. . . to store the data packet in another buffer ‘chunk’ or ‘segment’” (as the
Examiner asserts, see Ans. 6); rather, Osborne fills the “too small” buffer
segment with data from the data packet, before storing the rest of the data
Appeal 2020-004072
Application 15/597,881

6
packet in the next buffer segment. 4 (See Osborne 6:40–64.) More
particularly, Osborne’s column 6 explains that:
Chunking refers to the dividing of the buffer region used for
storing a received frame into a number of chunks. Each chunk is
a buffer or less in size and contains the part of a frame that fits
entirely within a buffer. Thus, a small frame might require only
a single chunk, but a large frame might require a first chunk less
than a buffer in size, then a chunk equal to a buffer, and then a
chunk less than a full buffer in size. Chunking, or the dividing up
of the buffer space, accommodates different size frames, thus
eliminating unused buffer space. In order to accomplish this,
assuming that a buffer has previously only been partially filled
by a frame, the next incoming frame is stored into the current
buffer starting at the end of the previous frame rather than being
stored into an entirely empty or unused buffer.
Thus chunking fills the remaining buffer area after the end
of the previous frame with other frames. If necessary, the system
obtains another empty buffer for the remainder of the present
frame. Assuming the frame is too long for this subsequent buffer,
then a further empty buffer is obtained. Chunking thus simplifies
the network interface and utilizes buffers more efficiently. Also,
chunking, by virtue of its operation, eliminates the overhead of
acquiring a new empty buffer on every frame arrival.

(Osborne 6:40–64 (emphases added).)
The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of
Brockmann and Mehta make up for the above-noted deficiencies of
Osborne. Because the Examiner has not made a showing of where Osborne
(or the remaining cited art) teaches or suggests the claimed “bypassing,” we
are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s obviousness

4 Even if Osborne were to bypass a small buffer segment in favor of a bigger
buffer segment (as the Examiner posits), the Examiner has still not identified
such a bigger buffer segment that is not part of a network buffer in
Osborne’s Figure 3A (or elsewhere in Osborne).
Appeal 2020-004072
Application 15/597,881

7
rejection of illustrative independent claim 8, and claims 9–12 and 14–20
depending therefrom. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 reciting limitations similar to
those of claim 8. (See Appeal Br. 9 (claim 1 (reciting division of data
associated with a data access request followed by “bypassing the network
buffer [of a network controller connected to separate first and second data
storage devices] to store the first data packet in the device buffer of the first
data storage device”)).) We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 2–4 depending from claim 1. The Examiner does not
identify how the teachings of Mehta remedy the noted deficiency, and we
cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 5–7 for the
same reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–12 and 14–20 based upon
obviousness.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 1–12 and 14–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8–12, 14–20 103 Brockmann,
Osborne
1–4, 8–12,
14–20
Appeal 2020-004072
Application 15/597,881

8
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
5–7 103 Brockmann,
Osborne, Mehta
5–7
Overall Outcome 1–12,
14–20

REVERSED