SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 8, 2022

2020006570 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2022)

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. 13/777,810 02/26/2013 Ryan James Goss STL17576 5534 73462 7590 03/08/2022 Hall Estill - Seagate Technology LLC 100 North Broadway, Suite 2900 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820 EXAMINER LOONAN, ERIC T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2137 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2022 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 okcipdocketing@hallestill.com seneca.kemp@seagate.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RYAN JAMES GOSS, DAVID SCOTT EBSEN, MARK ALLEN GAERTNER, MICHAEL JOSEPH STEINER, and ANTOINE KHOUEIR Appeal 2020-006570 Application 13/777,810 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, 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, 9-12, 14-16, and 20-24. 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 Seagate Technology LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-006570 Application 13/777,810 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added): 1. A method comprising: [A]. receiving data updates to a multi-tier memory structure of a local user device across a cloud network from a remote server during a cloud computing session and storing the received data updates as working data in a first location of an upper memory tier of the memory structure; [B]. predicting degradation in the first location of the upper memory tier with a data log circuit; [C]. migrating a current version of the working data to a different, second location in the upper memory tier responsive to predict degradation in the first location; [D]. logging the current version of the working data to a lower memory tier in the memory structure of the local user device as at least one snapshot responsive to the migration of the current version of the working data to the different, second location in the upper memory tier, the upper and lower memory tiers each comprising rewritable non- volatile memory cells having different constructions and storage attributes; [E]. generating a request for a selected data update from the remote server; [F]. analyzing a sequence of access operations upon the working data and initiating a prefetch command script to speculatively request selected data in anticipation of a future request for said selected data; [G]. issuing the requested selected data to the lower memory tier of the multi-tier memory structure; and [H]. transferring the selected data and selected data update from the lower memory tier to the upper memory tier in lieu of issuing the request to the remote server. Appeal Br. 14-15 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2020-006570 Application 13/777,810 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Chen et al. (“Chen”) US 2007/0288589 A1 December 13, 2007 Prahlad et al. (“Prahlad”) US 2010/0332401 A1 December 30, 2010 Ranade et al. (“Ranade”) US 2012/0089781 A1 April 12, 2012 Park et al. (“Park”) US 2012/0311237 A1 December 6, 2012 Woolford US 2012/0323597 A1 December 20, 2012 Ong US 2013/0212207 A1 August 15, 2013 Li US 2014/0050026 A1 February 20, 2014 Rouse, Margaret, “What is tiered storage?” (2019) (accessed April 18, 2019), https://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/tiered-storage (“Tiered Storage”) REJECTIONS A. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 6, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen, Ong, Li, Ranade, and Tiered Storage. Final Act. 3-6. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 6, and 9 further herein. Appeal 2020-006570 Application 13/777,810 4 B. The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen, Ong, Li, Ranade, Park, and Tiered Storage. Final Act. 6-7. The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103(a) rejection of claim 2 further herein. C. The Examiner rejects claims 10, 14-16, 20, 21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen, Ong, Li, Woolford, Ranade, and Tiered Storage. Final Act. 7-18. We select claims 10 and 21 as the representative claims for this rejection. The contentions discussed herein as to claims 10 and 21 are dispositive as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103(a) rejection of claims 14-16, 20, 23, and 24 further herein. D. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen, Ong, Li, Ranade, Woolford, and Tiered Storage. Final Act. 18-20. The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103(a) rejection of claims 4 and 5 further herein. E. The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen, Ong, Li, Park, Woolford, Ranade, and Tiered Storage. Final Act. 20-22. Appeal 2020-006570 Application 13/777,810 5 The contentions discussed herein as to claim 10 are dispositive as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103(a) rejection of claims 11 and 12 further herein. F. The Examiner rejects claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen, Ong, Li, Woolford, Ranade, Prahlad, and Tiered Storage. Final Act. 22. The contentions discussed herein as to claim 21 are dispositive as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103(a) rejection of claim 21 further herein. OPINION A. The present application has previously been on appeal before the Board (Appeal No. 2018-002875) (“Previous Decision”). In the Previous Decision, inter alia, we affirmed the rejections of independent claims 1, 10, and 21 and dependent claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and we reversed the rejection of dependent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), where claim 8 depended upon claim 7 and where claim 7 depended upon claim 1. Previous Decision 14. Appellant subsequently filed a Request for Continued Examination (“RCE”) and a Response Accompanying RCE, where Appellant amended independent claims 1, 10, and 21 to ostensibly include the limitations of claims 7 and 8, and where Appellant canceled claims 7 and 8. See RCE and Response Accompanying RCE, filed December 31, 2018. The relevant limitations of claims 1, 7, and 8 from the Previous Decision are presented below. 1. A method comprising: Appeal 2020-006570 Application 13/777,810 6 … transferring the selected data update from the lower memory tier to the upper memory tier in lieu of issuing the request to the remote server. 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising analyzing a sequence of access operations upon the working data and initiating a prefetch command script to speculatively request selected data in anticipation of a future request for said selected data. 8. The method of claim 7, in which the request for the selected data is issued to the lower memory tier of the multi-tier memory structure and the selected data are transferred from the lower memory tier to the upper memory tier of the multi-tier memory structure. Previous Decision 2-3. For purposes of comparison, the relevant limitations of claim 1 currently on appeal are presented below. 1. A method comprising: … analyzing a sequence of access operations upon the working data and initiating a prefetch command script to speculatively request selected data in anticipation of a future request for said selected data; issuing the requested selected data to the lower memory tier of the multi-tier memory structure; and transferring the selected data and selected data update from the lower memory tier to the upper memory tier in lieu of issuing the request to the remote server. Appeal Br. 2-3. Appeal 2020-006570 Application 13/777,810 7 B. While the Examiner conceded we did not affirm the rejection of claim 8 in the Previous Decision, the Examiner “respectfully notes the [Board] does not determine allowability of claims.” Ans. 4. The Examiner further found the subject matter of claim 8 of the Previous Decision was not incorporated into independent claims 1, 10, and 21. See id. More specifically, the Examiner noted two specific differences between the claims from the Previous Decision and the claims from the current appeal: (1) claim 8 of the Previous Decision recited “the request . . . is issued to the lower memory tier,” while claim 1 of the current appeal recites “issuing the requested selected data to the lower memory tier”; and (2) claim 1 of the Previous Decision recited “transferring the selected data update . . . in lieu of issuing the request to the remote server,” and claim 8 of the Previous Decision recites “the selected data are transferred,” while claim 1 of the current appeal now recites “transferring the selected data and the selected data update . . . in lieu of issuing the request to the remote server.” See id. at 5-6. The Examiner further found that the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 21 in the current appeal is distinct from the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 21 in the Previous Decision. See Ans. 4, 6. Specifically, in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner found, inter alia: (a) Ranade discloses “analyzing a sequence of access operations upon the working data and initiating a prefetch command script to speculatively request selected data in anticipation of a future request for said selected data,” as recited in claim 1; (b) Chen discloses “issuing the requested selected data to the lower memory tier of the multi-tier memory structure,” and “transferring the selected data and selected data update from the lower memory tier to the Appeal 2020-006570 Application 13/777,810 8 upper memory tier in lieu of issuing the request to the remote server,” as recited in claim 1; (c) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the storage manager of Chen to include prefetching as taught by Ranade in order to reduce access time to data; and (d) Tiered Storage provides evidence that remote or “cloud” storage can be a type of lower memory tier. See Final Act. 3-5. Even more specifically, the Examiner found Ranade discloses a speculative fetching module configured to fetch data from cloud files that is likely to be requested in the future, where the cloud files are stored in a storage cloud. See Ans. 7 (citing Ranade ¶ 102); see also Final Act. 5 (citing Ranade ¶ 102); Ranade ¶ 68. The Examiner further found Chen discloses a storage device that: (a) retrieves content from a remote server; (b) displays the content; (c) stores or archives the displayed content locally in a RAM/ROM cache, a disk drive, or some other form of non-volatile memory; (d) retrieves a current version of the content from the server; (e) retrieves the archived version of the content from local storage; (f) compares the current version of the content with the archived version of the content; and (g) displays the archived version of the content when the current version of the content is different from the content. See Final Act. 3-4 (citing Chen ¶¶ 35- 36, 40, 43, 45, 67); see also Ans. 7-8 (citing Chen ¶ 40). As further found by the Examiner, the Examiner relies on the combination of Ranade and Chen for teaching the aforementioned limitations of claim 1 of the current appeal rather than solely relying on Ranade. See Ans. 8-9. As explained by the Examiner: the limitations of “issuing the requested data to the lower memory tier of the multi-tier memory structure” and “transferring the selected data and the selected data update from the lower memory tier to the upper memory tier in lieu of issuing Appeal 2020-006570 Application 13/777,810 9 the request to the remote server” may be independently evaluated and recite no dependencies on any prefetching operation. Id. at 9 (emphasis added). As further found by the Examiner, while Ranade discloses a speculative fetching module that fetches data from a storage cloud, “[Tiered Storage] discloses that cloud storage may constitute a tier in tiered storage.” Final Act. 23. The Examiner further indicates that “the Office does not rely on [Tiered Storage] for teaching the discloses subject matter, but is presented as a background reference . . . to what is commonly known in the art.” Id. C. Appellant argued the Previous Decision established “the patentability of claim 8 . . . with respect to Chen in view of Ong, Li, and Ranade.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant further argued, in response to the Previous Decision, Appellant “incorporated the subject matter of claim 8 into independent claims 1, 10, and 21.” Id. According to Appellant, despite differences in the exact claim language, “the ordinary artisan would recognize that the entire subject matter from claim 8 has been incorporated into independent claims 1, 10, and 21 without altering the meaning, scope, or interpretation of claim 8.” Id. at 11. Thus, Appellant argued, “[i]n accordance with the [Previous Decision] with respect to claim 8 in view of the present art, the subject matter of independent claim 1 is allowable” as “Chen, Ong, Li, and Ranade individually and collectively fail to teach the subject matter of claim 1 or sufficiently support a prima facie case of obviousness.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 1-2. Appeal 2020-006570 Application 13/777,810 10 Appellant further argued “[i]ndependent claims 10 and 21 have each been amended to recite the subject matter of claim 8 allowed by the [Board] in the [Previous Decision].” Appeal Br. 12. As argued by Appellant, Woodford does not cure the deficiencies of Chen, Ong, Li, and Ranade, as Woodford does not teach or suggest “the claimed speculative fetching and transferring of data.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 1-2. In its Reply Brief, Appellant further argued: (a) Tiered Storage “is silent with respect to the claimed transferring of selected (fetched) data from a lower memory tier to an upper memory tier”; and (b) Tiered Storage is not available as evidence because Tiered Storage “has an earliest [publication] date of October 2018, which is more than five years after the present application was filed.” Reply Br. 2. D. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which the appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-23); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3-10) in response to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we agree with the Examiner that the scope of claim 8 from the Previous Decision is substantially different from claim 1 of the current appeal. See Ans. 5-6. Namely, while claim 8 from the Previous Decision recited “the request for the selected data is issued to the lower memory tier,” claim 1 of the current appeal recites Appeal 2020-006570 Application 13/777,810 11 “issuing the requested selected data to the lower memory tier.”2 Issuing a request for data to a memory tier is not the same as issuing data to the memory tier. Thus, the scope of the aforementioned claims is not the same.3 Further, although not noted by the Examiner, we also conclude the scope of claim 8 from the Previous Decision is substantially different from claim 21 of the current appeal. Namely, while claim 8 from the Previous Decision recited “the selected data are transferred from the lower memory tier to the upper memory tier of the multi-tier memory structure,” claim 21 of the current appeal recites “the programmable processor adapted to migrate the selected data . . . to a different, second location in the first non- volatile memory tier. Transferring data from a lower memory tier to an upper memory tier is not the same as migrating data from a first location in a first non-volatile memory tier to a different, second location in the first non-volatile memory tier.” Thus, the scope of the aforementioned claims is not the same. Even further, contrary to Appellant’s argument, we agree with the Examiner that the rejections at issue in the current appeal are different than the rejections at issue in the Previous Decision. See Ans. 6. Namely, in the current rejections: (a) the Examiner relies on Tiered Storage as evidence that the claimed “lower memory tier of the multi-tier memory structure” can be a 2 Claims 10 and 21 do not appear to have this discrepancy, as claim 10 recites “the request for the selected data is issued to the lower memory tier,” and claim 21 recites “to issue the request for the selected data to the first non-volatile memory tier.” Appeal Br. 17, 20. 3 In light of the above, it is not necessary to reach the Examiner’s other finding regarding “transferring the selected data and the selected data update . . . in lieu of issuing the request to the remote server,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2020-006570 Application 13/777,810 12 remote or cloud storage (Final Act. 4, 23); and (b) the Examiner provides additional reasons why the combination of Chen and Ranade teach or suggest limitations [F]-[H] of claim 1 of the current appeal (Ans. 6-9). Neither (a) nor (b) were before us in the rejections at issue in the Previous Decision. As indicated above, the main thrust of Appellant’s argument does not address the Examiner’s most recent findings regarding Tiered Storage (Final Act. 4, 23) or the combination of Chen and Ranade (Ans. 6-9), with the exception of the teachings and availability of Tiered Storage, which we address below. Instead, Appellant’s argument references the Previous Decision, which, as discussed above, did not address the Examiner’s most recent findings, as such findings were not before us in the previous appeal. As Appellant’s reliance upon the Previous Decision does not show reversible error regarding the Examiner’s most recent findings, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, and 21.4 Appellant’s argument that Tiered Storage does not teach or suggest transferring selected data from a lower memory tier to an upper memory tier is not persuasive as the Examiner relied upon Chen rather than Tiered Storage for teaching or suggesting the aforementioned limitation of claim 1. See Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 7-8. Further, Appellant’s argument that Tiered Storage is not available as evidence because Tiered Storage has a publication date that is after the effective filing date of the current claims of 4 Appellant’s reliance upon the Previous Decision is further misplaced with respect to at least claims 1 and 21, as the scope of claims 1 and 21 of the current appeal are not the same as the scope of claim 8 from the Previous Decision for the reasons discussed above. Appeal 2020-006570 Application 13/777,810 13 the present appeal is also not persuasive. As explained by the Examiner, the Examiner does not rely upon Tiered Storage as a prior art reference that teaches or suggests the claimed subject matter, but instead relied upon Tiered Storage as evidence of what was known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter (i.e., that a memory tier of a multi-tier memory structure can be a remote or cloud storage). See Final Act. 23. In certain circumstances, references cited to show a universal fact or other knowledge known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be available as prior art before an applicant’s filing date. In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266 (CCPA 1962). Even assuming arguendo that Appellant’s argument is correct, we note that other references which were published before effective filing date of the current claims of the present appeal also demonstrate that a memory tier of a multi-tier memory structure can be a remote or cloud storage. For example, Perry et al. (“Perry”), US 2010/0306253 A1 was published on December 2, 2010, and Perry discloses a computing device which implements tiered managed storage services, where a storage tier can be implemented as a web-based storage service (e.g., “cloud storage” or “storage as a service”). See Perry ¶¶ 13-14, 18. In light of all of the above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 21. CONCLUSION The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 9-12, 14-16, and 20-24 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 9-12, 14-16, and 20-24 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. Appeal 2020-006570 Application 13/777,810 14 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 6, 9 103(a) Chen, Ong, Li, Ranade, Tiered Storage 1, 3, 6, 9 2 103(a) Chen, Ong, Li, Ranade, Tiered Storage, Park 2 10, 14-16, 20, 21, 23, 24 103(a) Chen, Ong, Li, Woodford, Ranade, Tiered Storage 10, 14-16, 20, 21, 23, 24 4, 5 103(a) Chen, Ong, Li, Ranade, Tiered Storage, Woodford 4, 5 11, 12 103(a) Chen, Ong, Li, Woodford, Ranade, Tiered Storage, Park 11, 12 22 103(a) Chen, Ong, Li, Woodford, Ranade, Tiered Storage, Prahlad 22 Overall Outcome 1-6, 9-12, 14-16, 20- 24 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED