Ex Parte Cochran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 15, 2013

10697821 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT COCHRAN and JEFFREY D. FERREIRA-PRO
____________

Appeal 2010-007744
Application 10/697,821
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH,
and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-007744
Application 10/697,821

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-25, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A storage system comprising:

a storage array comprising:

a cabinet;

a plurality of storage devices contained within the
cabinet of at least three different and distinct controller-
to-storage device bus interface technology types
including volatile solid-state and nonvolatile disk types in
a single array and having a respective class hierarchy;
and

a controller contained within the cabinet and
coupled to the storage device plurality that executes
hierarchical storage management and selectively controls
usage of storage according to the different and distinct
controller-to-storage device bus interface technology type
whereby the controller allocates hierarchically inferior
storage for temporary storage, unexpected mission-
critical storage, and hierarchical storage management
(HSM)-type low usage data storage.

Prior Art
Belsan US 5,403,639 Apr. 4, 1995
Hauck US 2003/0158999 A1 Aug. 21, 2003
Lee US 7,047,358 B2 May 16, 2006
Appeal 2010-007744
Application 10/697,821

3
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-4, 10-13, 18-21, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Belsan.
Claims 5-9, 14-17, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Belsan and Lee.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Belsan and Hauck.

ANALYSIS
Section 102/103 rejection of claims 1-4, 10-13, 18-21, 24, and 25
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of storage devices contained within the
cabinet of at least three different and distinct controller-to-storage device bus
interface technology types.” The Examiner finds that Belsan teaches a file
system that controls use of the storage devices according to three different
and distinct controller-to-storage device bus interface technology types for
accessing the different types of storage technology. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Belsan describes three different interfaces for accessing
each of the solid state cache, optical disk drive, and magnetic tape storage
devices. Ans. 3-4, 11-14. Appellants contend that Belsan teaches a file
system that uses a single controller-to-storage device bus interface
technology type. App. Br. 10. According to Appellants, accessing data
stored in the cache memory, disk drive, and magnetic tape storage devices of
Belsan does not require the use of three different controller-to-storage device
bus interface technology types. App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 1-3.
Appeal 2010-007744
Application 10/697,821

4
Appellants provide support in the Specification for “three different
and distinct controller-to-storage device bus interface technology types” on
page 4, lines 16-22, page 9, lines 1-4 and 12-13, and Figures 1 and 5. App.
Br. 3. The cited portions of Appellants’ Specification show a storage system
with three different types of storage devices, not three different types of bus
interfaces. Thus, the scope of “three different and distinct controller-to-
storage device bus interface technology types” for accessing the different
types of storage technology, when read in light of Appellants’ Specification,
encompasses Belsan’s storage system for accessing each of the cache, disk
drive, and magnetic tape types of storage technology.
Claim 1 also recites “a plurality of storage devices contained within
the cabinet.” The Examiner finds that enclosing the plurality of storage
devices of Belsan in a single cabinet would have been obvious to protect the
storage devices from contamination and to make the storage devices
portable. Ans. 5, 13. Appellants contend that Belsan does not teach a single
cabinet may be used to contain multiple storage units using different
controller-to-storage device bus interface technology types. According to
Appellants, the reasons provided by the Examiner for containing the three
different storage devices in a single cabinet are not found in Benson and do
not provide an advantage over placing each storage device in its own
cabinet. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 4. However, Appellants have not
provided persuasive evidence or argument to show that containing several
components of a file system within a single cabinet was “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)).
Appeal 2010-007744
Application 10/697,821

5
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103.
Appellants have not provided arguments for separate patentability of claims
2-4, 10-13, 18-21, 24, and 25 which fall with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claims 5-9, 14-17, and 23
Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claims 5-9, 14-
17, and 23 similar to those presented for claim 1 which we find
unpersuasive. App. Br. 13-14. We sustain the rejection of claims 5-9, 14-
17, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claim 22
Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claim 22 similar
to those presented for claim 1 which we find unpersuasive. We sustain the
rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 10-13, 18-21, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Belsan is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 5-9, 14-17, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Belsan and Lee is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Belsan and Hauck 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). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(f).
Appeal 2010-007744
Application 10/697,821

6

AFFIRMED

babc