Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2017

13524484 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2017)

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.
13/524,484 06/15/2012 Clark A. Anderson POU920120133US1 6267
46429 7590 11/01/2017
C ANTOR mT RT TRN T T P-TRM POT TOHKFFPSTF EXAMINER
20 Church Street RANKIN, CANDICE A
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2132
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2017 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):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLARK A. ANDERSON, EDWARD W. CHENCINSKI,
JON S. ENTWISTLE, ADRIAN C. GERHARD, THOMAS J. GRIFFIN,
CHARLES E. MARI, KENNETH J. OAKES, STEVEN M. PARTLOW,
PETER G. SUTTON, ELPIDA TZORTZATOS, and DUSTIN J. VANSTEE
Appeal 2017-005743
Application 13/524,4841
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3—8, 10-15, and 17—20. Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2017-005743
Application 13/524,484
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to flash memory, and more
particularly to optimizing the performance of write operations in flash
memory. Spec. 11. Independent claim 1 is directed to a computer system;
independent claim 8 is directed to a computer-implemented method; and
independent claim 15 is directed to a computer program product. App. Br.
8-11.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A computer system for optimizing write performance of a
flash device, the system comprising:
a real storage manager configured to control a main
memory;
an auxiliary storage manager in communication with the
real storage manager, the auxiliary storage manager configured
to control an auxiliary storage, the auxiliary storage device
including the flash device, the system configured to perform a
method comprising:
receiving a request to evict a plurality of pages from the
main memory, wherein the plurality of pages are non-contiguous
in the main memory;
determining a block size for the flash device;
grouping the plurality of pages from the main memory into
a move specification block for transmission from the main
memory to the auxiliary storage device, wherein a size of the
move specification block is the block size; and
writing the move specification block to the flash device,
wherein the plurality of pages are written to occupy contiguous
address space in the auxiliary storage device,
wherein the block size is determined based on one or more
operational characteristics of the flash device and wherein the
one or more operational characteristics comprise a read/write
history of the flash device.
2
Appeal 2017-005743
Application 13/524,484
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 3—8, 10-15, and 17—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ware (US 2012/0005412 Al, published
Jan. 5, 2012), Neuhard et al. (US 5,394,539, published Feb. 28, 1995)
(“Neuhard”), Mukker et al. (US 2013/0254457 Al, published Sep. 26, 2013)
(“Mukker”), and Horn et al. (US 2011/0167239 Al, published July 7, 2011)
(“Horn”). Final Act. 4-5.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Answer. We highlight
the following for emphasis.
“Real storage manager ” is provided allocation block size and
“groups evicted pages into move specification blocks ”
Claim 1 recites “the system comprising: a real storage manager
configured to control a main memory; an auxiliary storage manager in
communication with the real storage manager, the auxiliary storage manager
configured to control an auxiliary storage, the auxiliary storage device
including the flash device” and “the system configured to perform a method
comprising . . . grouping the plurality of pages from the main memory into a
move specification block for transmission from the main memory to the
auxiliary storage device.”
Appellants contend that Horn does not teach that allocation block size
is “provided to a real storage manager or that the real storage manager
groups evicted pages into move specification blocks that have a size equal to
the allocation block size for transmission to the flash device.” App. Br. 7
3
Appeal 2017-005743
Application 13/524,484
However, claim 1 does not recite allocation block size is “provided to
a real storage manager or that the real storage manager groups evicted
pages into move specification blocks.” (Emphasis added). Rather, the claim
recites “the system configured to perform a method comprising . . . grouping
the plurality of pages from the main memory into a move specification block
for transmission from the main memory to the auxiliary storage device.”
(Emphasis added). Paragraph 17 of Appellants’ Specification discloses an
exemplary embodiment wherein “the auxiliary storage manager 206 is
configured to group the pages together and write the group to flash device
212.” In light of Appellants’ Specification, the scope of claim 1
encompasses an auxiliary storage manager grouping pages together and
writing the group to the flash device in a block size, such as block
management module 111 of Horn grouping data into an allocation block
adapted for page size, among other things, then writing the allocation block
to flash 113 (Fig. 1, H 7-9, 20, 23).
“Block size is determined based on ... a read/write history ”
Claim 1 recites “wherein a size of the move specification block is the
block size” and “wherein the block size is determined based on one or more
operational characteristics of the flash device and wherein the one or more
operational characteristics comprise a read/write history of the flash device.”
The Examiner finds Horn teaches block size being adapted based
upon an access history. Final Act. 6—7 (citing Horn || 7—9, 20). Appellants
contend Horn does not teach the system “group [ing] data, or files, into move
specification blocks having the pre-determined block size for transmission to
the flash device.” App. Br. 7.
4
Appeal 2017-005743
Application 13/524,484
However, claim 1 does not recite the block size is “pre-determined
block size for transmission to the flash device.” Rather, the claim recites
“determining a block size for the flash device . . . wherein the block size is
determined based on one or more operational characteristics of the flash
device and wherein the one or more operational characteristics comprise a
read/write history of the flash device." Thus, the scope of the claimed
block size is broader than Appellants’ argued “pre-determined block size,”
and merely requires being based on “a read/write history of the flash
device.” Appellants’ contention that claim 1 requires the block size be a pre­
determined block size is not persuasive of Examiner error because it is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1. See In re Self 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982) (rejecting arguments “not based on limitations appearing
in the claims”)..
Horn teaches “the processing logic of process may maintain a usage
history of a file based on a sequence of usage requests to access a file” by
monitoring “each usage request, e.g. file read/write requests, to the file and
record a history accordingly.” Horn | 32. As cited by the Examiner (Final
Act. 6—7), Horn teaches “heuristic... for an optimal allocation block size on
a file-by-file basis by monitoring a history of HO (input/output) requests or
usage requests to each individual file.” Horn 120 (emphasis added).
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s finding that
“wherein the block size is determined based on one or more operational
characteristics of the flash device and wherein the one or more operational
characteristics comprise a read/write history of the flash device,” as recited
in claim 1 (emphasis added), is taught by Horn’s determining allocation
block size based on a history of usage requests such as read/write requests
5
Appeal 2017-005743
Application 13/524,484
(i.e., a read/write history). Final Act. 6—7. Thus, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error in the rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, as well as
the rejection of claims 3—8, 10-15, and 17—20, not separately argued. See
App. Br. 7.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3—8, 10-15, and 17—20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6