12100237 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2014)

Ex Parte Amann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 2014

12100237 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2014)

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. 12/100,237 04/09/2008 Stefan Amann ROC920080021US1 5743 7590 12/18/2014 Grant A. Johnson IBM Corporation, Dept. 917 3605 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 EXAMINER OH, JAEHWAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2816 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/18/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEFAN AMANN, GERHARD BANZHAF, KENNETH WAYNE BOYD, KENNETH DAY III, JEFFREY WILLIAM PALM, HELMUT H. WEBER, and HARRY MORRIS YUDENFRIEND, 1 ____________ Appeal 2012-008672 Application 12/100,237 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, GLENN J. PERRY, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION 1 IBM Corporation is the assignee of the entire right, title, and interest and is the real party-in-interest. Appeal 2012-008672 Application 12/100,237 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8 and 11–17. 2 App. Br. 5. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For reasons set forth below, we reverse. Invention Appellants’ invention provides data integrity when a variable length record (e.g., a Count-Key-Data (CKD) or an Extended-Count-Key-Data (ECKD) record) is written to storage having fixed-length blocks. A “high performance block storage (HPBS) metadata unit” is created including a checksum that takes into account all blocks of the variable length data record. A Host Bus Adapter (HBA) of a mainframe system generates an “emulated record” that emulates the variable length record. The emulated record includes a sequence of extended fixed-length blocks, each of which includes a data block and footer. See Fig. 9. A confluence of the footers defines the metadata unit (see Fig. 10) associated with the emulated record. The checksum is compared with a calculated checksum during transit of the emulated record between a HBA and a storage subsystem, during a hardening step when writing the emulated record to a disk, and/or during a verification step when reading the emulated record from the disk. See Abstract; Summary. 2 Claims 1-8 and 11-20 were rejected in the Final Office Action (“FOA”) mailed July 22, 2011. Subsequently, claims 18-20 were cancelled. 3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Office Action mailed July 22, 2011 (“FOA”); (2) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed December 27, 2011; (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed March 15, 2012; and (4) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed May 11, 2012. Appeal 2012-008672 Application 12/100,237 3 Illustrative Claim Three independent claims (1, 8, and 12) are pending in this appeal. Claim 1 is directed to a data processing system, claim 8 is directed to a “computer program product” reciting the key limitations of claim 1, and claim 12 is directed to a “data structure.” According to Appellant, the independent claims (claims 1, 8, and 12) have a common set of features including: “a sequence of extended fixed-length blocks” that together define “an emulated variable length record”; each extended fixed-length block comprises “a data block” and “a footer”; “a high performance block storage (HPBS) metadata unit” that is associated with the emulated variable length record and is defined by “a confluence of the footers”; the HPBS metadata unit “includes a checksum that covers all of the data blocks and all of the footers of the entirety of the emulated variable length record”; and “wherein the confluence of the footers includes one or more information units (IUs) each spanning across at least two of the footers in the confluence of the footers from one of the footers to another of the footers.” These common claim features define the data structure of the emulated variable length record. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below (disputed limitations are emphasized): 1. A data processing system, comprising: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor, the memory encoded with instructions that when executed by the processor comprise at least one of the steps of: generating an emulated variable length record that emulates a variable length record, Appeal 2012-008672 Application 12/100,237 4 the emulated variable length record comprising a sequence of extended fixed-length blocks, each of the extended fixed-length blocks comprising a data block and a footer, wherein a confluence of the footers defines a high performance block storage metadata unit that is associated with the emulated variable length record, wherein the high performance metadata unit includes a checksum that covers all of the data blocks and all of the footers of the entirety of the emulated variable length record, and wherein the confluence of the footers includes one or more information units each spanning across at least two of the footers in the confluence of the footers from one of the footers to another of the footers; checking the checksum upon the occurrence of one or more of the following events: during transit of the emulated variable length record to a disk drive; during a hardening step of a process for writing the emulated variable length record to a disk; during a verification step of a process for reading the emulated variable length record from a disk; and during transit of the emulated variable length record from a disk drive. (Emphasis and formatting added.) Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over “Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art” (“AAPA”) 4 and Arataki. 5 Ans. 4. 4 AAPA is described at pages 3-11 of the Final Office Action and is illustrated in Application Figures 1-7, each labeled “Prior Art”. Appeal 2012-008672 Application 12/100,237 5 ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 8 The Examiner relies upon AAPA as describing all of the limitations of claim 1 except those related to the “metadata unit” defined by a “confluence of the footers,” the “checksum that covers all of the data blocks and all of the footers” and the “information units” that span across at least two of the footers.” The Examiner relies on Arataki as teaching these limitations. FOA 3–6; Ans. 4–7. Specifically, the Examiner points to Arataki’s Block Checking Code (BCC) 120 as corresponding to the claimed “informational unit” and to Arataki’s Field Checking Code (FCC) 120 as corresponding to the claimed “footer.” Ans. 12–14. Appellants argue that AAPA and Arataki do not teach wherein a confluence of the footers defines a high performance block storage metadata unit that is associated with the emulated variable length record, wherein the high performance metadata unit includes a checksum that covers all of the data blocks and all of the footers of the entirety of the emulated variable length record, and App. Br. 15–23; Reply Br. 3–5. Appellants support their argument by noting that Arataki’s block checking codes (BCC) 120 are related to individual logical blocks of cache memory as shown in Arataki’s Fig. 2. They argue that calculation of the BCC 120 is based on the FCCs 130, but that this calculation does not take into account all footers for the entire variable-length record. We agree. 5 US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0129901 A1 – Arataki et al. (“Arataki”). Appeal 2012-008672 Application 12/100,237 6 BCC as shown in Arataki’s FIG. 2 accounts for only the footers shown in the block stored in cache as shown. Thus, it does not meet the limitations emphasised in illustrative claim 1 as written above. See, Arataki, FIG. 2 and the discussion of the block-checking code 120 at paragraphs 36 and 40. We agree. On this record, the Examiner has not established that Arataki creates a “metadata unit” that includes a checksum covering all of the data and all of the footers of the variable-length record. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 8 and their respective dependent claims. Claim 12 Claim 12 is directed to a “data structure.” Given claim 12 recites the key claim features in common with claims 1 and 8, for the same reasons as set forth above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 12 and its dependent claims. CONCLUSION For reasons stated above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–8 and 11–17 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art and Arataki. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–8 and 11–17 is REVERSED.