Ex parte Beglin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 13, 2001

08188001 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 13, 2001)

Application for patent filed January 28, 1994,1
entitled "Automated Storage Library For Managing Allocation Of
A Peripheral Data Storage Device In Response To A Multi-Volume
Data Set Request."
- 1 -
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte THOMAS W. BEGLIN

Appeal No. 1999-0005
Application 08/188,0011

ON BRIEF

Before BARRETT, RUGGIERO, and BARRY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 1999-0005
Application 08/188,001
- 2 -
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the final rejection of claims 1-17.
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention is directed to a method and device for
allocating a peripheral data storage device (PDSD) when a
collection of data volumes, defining a multi-volume data
set, is requested in an automated storage library having a
plurality of data volumes and a plurality of PDSDs. A
"multi-volume data set" is a single data set that occupies
multiple volumes. The volumes of the multi-volume data set
are likely to be dispersed in a plurality of storage bins
located throughout the library. The invention relates to
selecting an optimum PDSD for mounting the volumes of the
multi-volume data set; i.e., selecting one PDSD where each
volume of the multi-volume data set is mounted. It is known
to provide an "affinity list" for a volume which comprises
an ordered list of the PDSDs that are physically closest to
the specified volume. Without the improvement of the
invention, the first PDSD on the affinity list, which is the
PDSD closest to the first volume of the multi-volume data
Appeal No. 1999-0005
Application 08/188,001
- 3 -
set, would be selected. The invention assigns a weight to
each PDSD based on its physical proximity to all the data
volumes of the collection of data volumes defining a
multi-volume data set and selects the PDSD with the closest
overall physical proximity to the volumes of the data set.
Appeal No. 1999-0005
Application 08/188,001
- 4 -
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for allocating a peripheral data
storage device (PDSD) when a collection of data
volumes, defining a multi-volume data set, is requested
in an automated storage library having a plurality of
data volumes and a plurality of PDSDs, the method
comprising:
assigning weighted scores to said PDSDs based on
their physical proximity to data volumes of said
collection of data volumes; and
selecting a PDSD having a weighted score
indicating closest proximity to said data volumes.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Gelb et al. (Gelb) 5,018,060 May 21,
1991
Leonhardt et al. (Leonhardt) 5,164,909 November
17, 1992
Gniewek 5,287,459 February 15,
1994
(filed October 3,
1991)
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11-13, 16, and 17 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gniewek.
Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 14, and 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gniewek and
Gelb.
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gniewek and Leonhardt.
Appeal No. 1999-0005
Application 08/188,001
Unfortunately, a hole has been punched through the2
page numbers on all sheets of all copies of the Examiner's
Answer in the file. We have numbered the pages starting at
page 1 beginning on the page following the cover sheet (i.e.,
the page having paragraph 1 to the Real Party in Interest).
- 5 -
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 7) and the
Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 10) (pages referred to as
"EA__" )2
Appeal No. 1999-0005
Application 08/188,001
- 6 -
for a statement of the Examiner's position, and to the
Appeal Brief (Paper No. 9) (pages referred to as "Br__") for
a statement of Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Gniewek
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11-13, 16, and 17 are grouped to
stand or fall together (Br8). Claim 1 is selected as the
representative claim.
The Examiner interprets the claimed "collection of data
volumes, defining a multi-volume data set" to read on the
multiple copies of a single volume data set taught in
Gniewek. The Examiner reasons that the determination of the
cartridge from which the data can be retrieved in the
shortest response time "clearly suggests assigning a
weighted score to each said PDSD and selecting a PDSD having
a weighted score indicating closest proximity to each
requested data volume . . ." (EA4) and that assigning a
weighted score and selecting a PDSD based on the weighted
score would have been obvious (EA4-5).
Appellant argues (Br10) that Gniewek does not teach or
suggest a "multi-volume data set." The Examiner disagrees.
Appeal No. 1999-0005
Application 08/188,001
- 7 -
The Examiner states that Appellant fails to define what is
meant by a multi-volume data set and interprets a
"multi-volume data set" to include "multiple copies of data
stored on different volumes" (EA13). The Examiner further
states that "[n]o predefined 'volumes' or predefined
'multi-volume sets' have been recited in any of the claims"
(EA14).
The Examiner errs in concluding that a "multi-volume
data set" is not defined or claimed. The specification
expressly discloses (p. 4, lines 4-6): "Each side of a
cartridge, cassette or disk is considered a 'volume'. Data
stored on one side comprises a 'data volume'. When a data
set covers more than one side of a cassette or disk it is
said to be a 'multi-volume data set'." A "multi-volume data
set" is defined as a single data set that spans multiple
volumes, which is consistent with its apparent meaning. A
"multi-volume data set" does not have the same meaning as
multiple copies of a single volume data set. Thus, we
conclude the Examiner erred in interpreting a "multi-volume
data set" to read on the multiple copies of a single volume
data set in Gniewek.
Appeal No. 1999-0005
Application 08/188,001
- 8 -
Claim 1 recites "allocating a peripheral data storage
device (PDSD) when a collection of data volumes, defining a
multi-volume data set, is requested" (emphasis added) and
"assigning weighted scores to said PDSDs based on their
physical proximity to data volumes of said collection of
data volumes" (emphasis added), which expressly require the
multi-volume data set to comprise a collection of data
volumes (plural) for a single data set. Claims 7 and 13
have similar limitations. The Examiner errs in concluding
that volumes of a multi-volume set are not claimed.
We conclude that the Examiner's rejection must fail
because it is based on an erroneous claim interpretation.
Specifically, as discussed above, the Examiner errs in
interpreting the claimed "collection of data volumes,
defining a multi-volume data set" to read on the multiple
copies of a single volume data set taught in Gniewek.
Gniewek is directed to selecting the one, single copy from a
multiplicity of data copies that can be retrieved in the
shortest response time (abstract; col. 10, lines 45-47: "It
is the purpose of the logic function module 90 to select the
cartridge from which the data will be retrieved in the
Appeal No. 1999-0005
Application 08/188,001
- 9 -
shortest response time."). Gniewek does not disclose a
"multi-volume data set," as defined, and, so, does not
address Appellant's problem of "allocating a peripheral data
storage device (PDSD) [from a plurality of PDSDs] when a
collection of data volumes, defining a multi-volume data
set, is requested," as recited in the preamble of claim 1,
and does not suggest the claimed solution. Claim 1 recites
the steps of "assigning weighted scores to said PDSDs based
on their physical proximity to data volumes of said
collection of data volumes, and selecting a PDSD having a
weighed score indicating closest proximity to said data
volumes." These steps, taken together with the preamble,
require selecting a PDSD for mounting each volume of a
multi-volume data set based on a weighted score indicating
closest proximity to plural data volumes. Gniewek only
matches up one cartridge (volume) with one drive (PDSD) and
does not suggest weighting or selecting a PDSD to mount
several volumes.
For these reasons, and for the reasons stated in
Appellant's brief, with which we completely agree, the
Appeal No. 1999-0005
Application 08/188,001
- 10 -
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11-13, 16, and 17 is
reversed.
Gniewek and Gelb
Gelb does not cure the deficiencies of Gniewek with
regard to claims 1 and 7. Accordingly, the rejection of
dependent claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 14, and 15 is reversed.
Gniewek and Leonhardt
The Examiner finds that "Leonhardt et al describe that
it is known in the art to record attribute information of
storage devices for mapping storage devices and data volumes
based on the attribute information (assigning a weighted
score) and create a prioritized list of matching drive
elements (storage devices) in order to select a storage
device for a requested data volume . . ." (EA10). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to assign
a weighted score to each PDSD and select a PDSD having a
weighted score indicating closest proximity to each
requested data volume in Gniewek in view of Leonhardt in
Appeal No. 1999-0005
Application 08/188,001
- 11 -
order to fulfill the data request in the shortest response
time (EA10).
We find that Leonhardt does not overcome the
deficiencies of Gniewek because it also does not address
selecting an optimum PDSD for mounting a collection of data
volumes defining a multi-volume data set. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 1-17 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-17 are reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Appeal No. 1999-0005
Application 08/188,001
- 12 -
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-0005
Application 08/188,001
- 13 -
Terrance A. Meador
GRAY, CARY, WARE & FREIDENRICH
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101