Ex Parte DematapitiyaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201613522886 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/522,886 07/18/2012 Sumudu Dematapitiya Q140366 9653 23373 7590 12/22/2016 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20037 EXAMINER CHANG, TIAN-PONG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2136 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2016 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): PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM sughrue@sughrue.com USPTO@sughrue.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SUMUDU DEMATAPITIYA Appeal 2016-002168 Application 13/522,886 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 7—10, all the pending claims in the present application. Claims 2, 3, and 6 are canceled. See Claim Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2016-002168 Application 13/522,886 The present invention relates generally to distributing and storing data by dividing storage target data into a plurality of pieces and redundant data into a plurality of storing means. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A storage system, comprising a plurality of storing units and a data processing unit for storing data into the plurality of storing units and retrieving the data stored in the storing units, wherein the data processing unit includes: a distribution storage processing unit for distributing and storing a plurality of fragment data including division data obtained by dividing storage target data into a plurality of pieces and redundant data for restoring the storage target data, into the plurality of storing units; an operation status detecting unit for executing detection of an operation status of each of the storing units; and a data regenerating unit for, in accordance with a result of the detection by the operation status detecting unit, when any of the storing units goes down, executing regeneration of the fragment data having been stored in the down storing unit based on other of the fragment data stored in another of the storing units different from the down storing unit, and storing into the other of the storing units; and wherein the data regenerating unit has a function of transferring and storing the fragment data stored in the storing unit previously scheduled to go down into another of the storing units before the storing unit scheduled to go down goes down, wherein based on operation schedule data in which it is previously set the storing unit goes down, the data regenerating unit transfers and stores the fragment data stored in the storing unit into another of the storing units before the storing unit goes down and, when the storing unit scheduled to go down goes down, the data regenerating unit does not execute the regeneration of the fragment data having been stored in the storing unit, wherein when any of the storing units goes down in accordance with an input operation instruction, the data regenerating unit executes a process of the regeneration of the fragment data 2 Appeal 2016-002168 Application 13/522,886 having been stored in the down storing unit with lower priority than priority set on another process in the storage system, and wherein in a case that the down storage unit does not recover within a preset time during the time of execution of the process of the regeneration of the fragment data stored in the down storing unit with the lower priority, the data regenerating unit executes the process of the regeneration with higher priority than the lower priority. Appellant appeals the following rejections: Rl. Claims 1 and 7—10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yasuhara (JP 2000-200157 A, July 18, 2000), Lerman (US 6,996,742 B2, Feb. 7, 2006), Tamai (US 6,799,283 Bl, Sept. 28, 2004), and Tanaka (US 6,625,748 Bl, Sept. 23, 2003); and R2. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yasuhara, Lerman, Tamai, Tanaka, and Olster (US 2010/0031082 Al, Feb. 4, 2010). ANALYSIS Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7—10 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Lerman teaches or suggests operation schedule data in which it is previously set [when] the storing unit does down, as set forth in each of the independent claims. Appellant contends that “Lerman merely discloses that data from disk drive predicted to fail and a disk drive that has failed is written to spare extents in the non-failed disk drives. However, Lerman does not teach or suggest. . . ‘previously scheduled to go down . . . before the storing unit scheduled to go down goes down’” (App. Br. 13). 3 Appeal 2016-002168 Application 13/522,886 Here, the Examiner admits that Yasuhara does not explicitly disclose the storing unit previously scheduled to go down (see Final Act. 4), but instead relies upon Lerman to disclose such features. As such, we shall look for error in the Examiner’s interpretation of Lerman. The Examiner finds that Lerman’s Figure 6 “describe[s] a schedule go down on a disk, the scheduled go down disk is a disk predicted to fail [sic]” (Ans. 5). We disagree with the Examiner. In essence, the Examiner equates Lerman’s disk drive failure predicting capabilities with the claimed “operation schedule data in which it is previously set the storing unit goes down” (see claim 1). For example, Lerman discloses: As soon as the server 310 calculates the success rate of a certain disk has deteriorated below a minimum threshold, it declares that disk drive as being defective (i.e., pending failure). It is noted that although a particular disk drive has been declared (i.e., predicted) as a pending failure, the disk drive has not actually failed. . . . At step 606, the server 310 determines if the predicted failed disk drive 320 has actually failed. (Lerman 13:37-49; see also Fig. 6). In other words, Lerman declares a disk as defective, i.e., the disk is predicted to have a pending failure that will happen perhaps soon, although the precise time of such a failure is not known so a check is routinely made to determine if the disk has actually gone down. However, we agree with Appellant that Lerman’s pending failure is distinguishable from a previously scheduled going down of a disk. The ordinary and usual meaning of “scheduled” is a place in a timetable. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1050 (9th Edition 1990). Contrary to the claimed scheduled data, Lerman merely teaches a 4 Appeal 2016-002168 Application 13/522,886 pending disk down, i.e., a disk that will arguably go down soon, but when it will go down is unknown. However, with a scheduled disk down, we know the precise time that the disk will be taken out of service. Lerman leaves us wondering when the disk will actually go down, as no time frame is suggested. Therefore, we find that the Examiner has not shown that Lerman teaches or suggests a “storing unit previously scheduled to go down . . . based on operation schedule data in which it is previously set the storing unit goes down [sic], ” as set forth in claim 1. (Emphasis added.). In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the proposed combination of references, particularly Lerman, set forth by the Examiner does not support the obviousness rejection. We, accordingly, do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 9, and 10, each of which include the argued limitation, or the rejection of claims 4, 5, and 7 which are dependent on claim 1. DECISION1 The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4, 5, and 7—10 is reversed. REVERSED 1 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider if the computer-readable medium claim, claim 9, should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We note that the ordinary and customary meaning of “computer readable storage medium” to a person of ordinary skill in the art is broad enough to encompass both non-transitory and transitory media. Signals are not patentable eligible subject matter under § 101. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See also MPEP § 2106(1) (8th ed. Rev. 9 Aug. 2012) and Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013) (precedential). 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation