Ex Parte Beadnell et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 17, 201411938525 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DUNCAN BEADNELL and DON HARWOOD ____________________ Appeal 2012-003218 Application 11/938,525 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-003218 Application 11/938,525 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1–30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard oral argument on October 14, 2014. We reverse. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to adjustment of data storage capacity provided by a storage system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter with a disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 1. A method of providing adjustable data storage capacity to a host system from a storage system having physical storage media for storage of data, wherein the storage system is arranged to store data in at least one partition of the physical storage media in accordance with file system information stored in the storage system specifying a plurality of logical blocks having logical block addresses within the partition, the file system information including unusable block data marking logical blocks as unusable, and the storage system is arranged, in response to access requests specifying logical block addresses in the at least one partition, to access the physical storage media employing a mapping which maps logical block addresses to space in the physical storage media, the method comprising storing file system information specifying a plurality of logical blocks including excess logical blocks that are not mapped to space in the physical storage media by the mapping employed by the storage system, and including unusable block data marking said excess logical blocks as unusable, the data storage capacity being adjustable by changing the mapping employed by the storage system to map more or fewer logical block addresses to space in the physical storage media and thereby destroy or create excess logical blocks, and changing the unusable block data to Appeal 2012-003218 Application 11/938,525 3 correspondingly change the excess logical blocks marked as unusable. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Auslander Cox Merkey Shapiro US 5,129,088 US 5,435,004 US 6,795,895 B2 US 7,398,524 B2 July 7, 1992 July 18, 1995 Sept. 21, 2004 July 8, 2008 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1–7, 9–14, 16–22, and 24–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Auslander and Cox. Ans. 6–14. Claims 8 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Auslander, Cox, and Merkey. Ans. 14–15. Claims 15 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Auslander, Cox, and Shapiro. Ans. 15–16. APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION1 “Cox does not disclose the use of any excess logical blocks that are not mapped to space in the physical storage media [as required by claim 1], as all of the logical blocks in the logical volume in Cox are mapped to space in the physical storage media.” App. Br. 16. 1 We note Appellants raise additional contentions of error but we do not reach them as our resolution of this contention is dispositive of the appealed rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2012-003218 Application 11/938,525 4 ISSUE ON APPEAL Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 12–27) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1–6), the dispositive issue presented on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding Cox’s relationship between a primary map of logical blocks and a shadow map of unmapped blocks teaches or suggests file system information specifying local blocks that are not mapped to physical spaces. See Ans. 18. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Auslander and Cox. We agree with Appellants’ conclusions as to this rejection of the claims. The Examiner finds Cox suggests the disputed limitation of excess logical blocks that are not mapped to space in the physical storage media by the mapping employed by the storage system. Ans. 6. The Examiner explains Cox’s primary map of logical blocks (A) is to Cox’s shadow map of unmapped blocks (B) as Appellant's claimed file system information specifying logical blocks having addresses in a physical partition (C) is to Appellant's claimed file system information specifying logical blocks that are not mapped to physical spaces in a physical partition (D). Ans. 18. That is, the Examiner finds, by analogy, Cox teaches or suggests logical blocks not mapped to physical blocks. Id. Appellants argue Cox discloses each logical block, whether in a non- shadowed or shadowed portion of storage, is mapped to physical blocks in the physical storage media. App. Br. 18. According to Appellants, “the Appeal 2012-003218 Application 11/938,525 5 primary map 106 relied on by the Examiner does not identify any excess logical blocks that are not mapped to space in the physical storage media, because all the logical blocks in the logical volume 80 are mapped to space in the physical storage media.” App. Br. 18. Appellants further argue to be inapposite the Examiner’s finding logical blocks in an origin that are not mapped to logical blocks in a destination suggests, by analogy, blocks in an origin of a mapping that are not space in a physical storage media. Reply Br. 2–3. We agree with Appellants. We find the Examiner’s analogy (Ans. 18) insufficient to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Cox’s disclosure of logical blocks mapped to physical blocks in physical storage undercuts any analogy whereby disclosure of unmapped logical blocks would suggest logical blocks unmapped to physical blocks. Therefore, on the record before us, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and, for the same reason, do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Auslander and Cox together with the rejection of dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, 17–22, and 24–29. Furthermore, we do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 8 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Auslander, Cox, and Merkey or the rejection of dependent claims 15 and 30 over Auslander, Cox, and Shapiro as the Examiner’s applications of the Merkey and Shapiro references also fail to cure the deficiency in the base rejections addressed supra. Appeal 2012-003218 Application 11/938,525 6 DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–30 is reversed. REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation