Ex Parte DeCenzo

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 16, 2012

11478905 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/478,905 06/30/2006 David P. DeCenzo STL13095 9174
7590 02/16/2012
Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens
Suite 1700
100 North Broadway
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820
EXAMINER
THAI, TUAN V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte DAVID P. DECENZO,
_____________

Appeal 2011-005888
Application 11/478,905
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and JEFFREY S.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, 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 through 5, 7 through 18, and 20 through 22. Claims 6
and 19 have been canceled.

Appeal 2011-005888
Application 11/478,905

2

We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a storage system with efficient queue
scheduling configured to short-stroke an actuator, and to operate in an active
zone of the storage device. See pages 2 and 3 of Appellant’s Specification.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A data storage system comprising a storage domain
defining an active zone subportion of storage space that includes an
innermost storage location and a command queue controller
configured for short-stroking an actuator directed to the active zone by
only executing pending access commands in a command queue that
are associated with the active zone until a predetermined condition is
satisfied with respect to nonexecuted pending access commands in the
command queue that are not associated with the active zone.

REFERENCES
Blumenau US 6,076,143 Jun. 13, 2000
Harada US 6,553,454 B1 Apr. 22, 2003
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 5, 7 through 18, and 20
through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Blumenau in
view of Harada. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 3 through 9 of the
Answer. 1
ISSUES
Independent claims 1 and 10

1 Throughout this decision we refer to the Answer dated November 18, 2010.
Appeal 2011-005888
Application 11/478,905

3

Appellant argues on pages 6 through 11 of the Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 is in error.2 These
arguments present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding the
combination of Blumenau and Harada teaches a command queue controller
for short-stroking an actuator directed to an active zone “until a
predetermined condition is satisfied with respect to non-executed pending
access commands in the command queue that are not associated with the
active zone,” as claimed?

Independent claim 20
Appellant’s arguments on pages 11 and 12 of the Brief with respect to
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 present us with the issue: did the
Examiner err in finding the combination of Blumenau and Harada teaches
means for reordering commands in a command queue to continuously short
stroke data storage devices as claimed?

ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 10
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Brief and we agree
with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding: the
combination of Blumenau and Harada teaches a command queue controller
for short stroking an actuator directed to an active zone until a
predetermined condition is satisfied with respect to non-executed pending
access commands in the command queue that are not associated with the

2 Throughout this decision we refer to the Brief dated August 16, 2010, and
Footnote continued on next page.
Appeal 2011-005888
Application 11/478,905

4

active zone. Independent claims 1 and 10 recite limitations directed to short
stroking the actuator in this manner. The Examiner finds that Harada
teaches reordering commands in a command queue based upon the time and
relative movement between the head and the disk to execute the command.
Answer 11-12. We concur with these findings. The Examiner further finds
that Blumenau’s teaching that the time is compared to a predefined time to
determine if the command will be executed, meets the claimed
predetermined condition with respect to a non-executed access command.
We disagree; this comparison is to determine whether to reorder a command
and not related to a determination to short-stroking an actuator head within
an active zone, as claimed. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 or dependent claims 2 through 5, 7
through 9, 11 through 18, 21, and 22.

Independent claim 20
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Brief and we disagree
with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Blumenau and Harada teaches means for reordering
commands in a command queue to continuously short stroke data storage
devices as claimed. Appellant argues the specification defines the means for
reordering commands in a command queue, as for short stroking an actuator
directed to an active zone until a predetermined condition is satisfied with
respect to non-executed pending access commands in the command queue

Reply Brief dated January 18, 2011.
Appeal 2011-005888
Application 11/478,905

5

that are not associated with the active zone. Brief 11-12, Reply Brief 16-17.
We disagree.
Claim 20 is drafted in means plus function format which
presumptively invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Altiris, Inc. v
Symantec Corp. 318 F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Under § 112, sixth
paragraph, means-plus-function claim language must be construed by
“look[ing] to the specification and interpret[ing] that language in light of the
corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein, and equivalents
thereof, to the extent that the specification provides such disclosure.” In re
Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). “‘The
first step in construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is to define
the particular function of the claim limitation. The court must construe the
function of a means-plus function limitation to include the limitations
contained in the claim language, and only those limitations.’” In re Aoyama
656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(Fed. Cir. 2011, internal cites omitted).
The recited function in claim 20 is merely “ordering commands in a
command queue to continuously short-stroke data storage devices forming
the RAID.” We note that, Appellant’s Specification, further defines “means
for ordering” as:
partitioned arrangement of active and inactive zone(s) in each of the
plurality of domains forming the RAID, with the actuator being
directed to seek only within the presently designated active zone in
order to short-stroke it in satisfying access commands…. [A]ctive
zones to be complementary so that [that] any priority access
command, be it either a read or write command, can be immediately
satisfied by one of the domains.

Specification 15. However, we decline to import such further functions into
the recited means, i.e. we construe the claim directed only to the structure
Appeal 2011-005888
Application 11/478,905

6

which performs the claimed function and it’s equivalents. Thus,
Appellant’s arguments, that Harada does not teach short stroking an actuator
directed to an active zone until a predetermined condition is satisfied with
respect to non-executed pending access commands in the command queue
that are not associated with the active zone, discussed above, are not
persuasive with respect to claim 20, as they are not commensurate with
claim 20’s scope.
Appellant’s Specification identifies that the command queue
controller (item 198, figure 5), which passes commands for the active
region, also holds commands for the inactive zone in a pending command
queue. Specification 12. Thus, it is the command queue controller which
performs the function of reordering commands in a command queue to
continuously short stroke data storage devices as claimed. The Examiner
has shown that Harada discloses a control unit, item 41, Figure 1, which
selects commands based upon time and distance on the disk that has the
effect of reducing head movement. Answer 3, 13, and 14. We concur with
the Examiner. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the
structure to perform the claimed ordering commands is different from (or not
an equivalent of) that taught by Harada. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 20.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1 through 5, 7 through 18, 21 and 22, but have not persuaded
us of error in the rejection of claim 20.

Appeal 2011-005888
Application 11/478,905

7

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 5, 7 through
18, and 20 through 22 is affirmed in part.

No time period for taking any subsequent action on connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. 1.136(a)(1)(iv)

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tj