Ex Parte Duncan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2016

11589544 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111589,544 10/28/2006 Robert Duncan
56436 7590 04/28/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82223018 4887
EXAMINER
MCCARTHY, CHRISTOPHER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2113
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT DUNCAN and JOHN CZERKOWICZ
Appeal2014-008632
Application 11/589,544
Technology Center 2100
Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, STEPHEN C. SIU, and
RAMA G. ELLURU Administrative Patent Judges.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-008632
Application 11/589,544
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
The disclosed invention relates generally to managing removable
media. Spec. 3. Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A tape drive, comprising:
a media reader for reading a removable tape
cartridge containing current data for restoring a failed
computer system;
a fixed non-volatile memory storing media
management records that uniquely identify the removable
tape cartridge containing the current data for restoring the
failed computer system, wherein the tape drive 1s an
external peripheral device to the computer system.
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Trimmer
Huebsch
Arakawa
Anna
US 2004/0044863 Al
US 7,127,535 Bl
US 7,185,048 B2
US 2008/0126522 Al
Mar. 4, 2004
Oct. 24, 2006
Feb.27,2007
May 29, 2008
Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 1999 ("Microsoft").
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 6-11, 14--18, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huebsch, Arakawa, and
Trimmer; claims 4, 1 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
1 The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Huebsch, Trimmer, and
Arakawa. Claim 4 depends from claim 1. Therefore, we assume the
Examiner rejects claim 4 as obvious over Huebsch, Trimmer, Arakawa, and
Microsoft.
2
Appeal2014-008632
Application 11/589,544
unpatentable over Huebsch, Trimmer, Arakawa, and Microsoft; and claims
52 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huebsch,
Trimmer, Arakawa, and Anna.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 14--18, and 20-Huebsch, Trimmer, and Arakawa
Claim 1, for example, recites a tape drive comprising a media reader
and a fixed non-volatile memory storing media management records.
Appellants argue that "none of the references cited by the Examiner disclose
a tape drive that can receive a removable tape cartridge and also includes a
fixed, non-volatile memory that is used to store information for locating a
particular removable media that contains backup data." App. Br. 8. In
particular, Appellants argue that Trimmer fails to disclose "a fixed non-
volatile memory storing information" and, therefore, "does not remedy the
deficiencies of Huebsch ... and 1A .. rakav1a." App. Br. 9-10. \Ve are not
persuaded by Appellants' argument for at least the reasons set forth by the
Examiner. Ans. 2, 3, 9-11.
For example, Trimmer discloses a "storage medium 18" on which
"[ o ]ne or more virtual libraries are defined." Trimmer i-f 23. The "storage
medium 18" is a "data storage medium" that "includ[ es] disks, disk
subsystems, hard drives ... " Trimmer i-f 21. In other words, "storage
medium 18" is a "fixed non-volatile memory" and stores a "virtual library."
2 The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Huebsch, Trimmer, and
Arakawa. Claim 5 depends from claim 1. Therefore, we assume the
Examiner rejects claim 5 as obvious over Huebsch, Trimmer, Arakawa, and
Anna.
3
Appeal2014-008632
Application 11/589,544
Trimmer also discloses that a "virtual library" includes "identifying
bar codes or labels used on the physical data storage device" that are "stored
as a virtual tape within the virtual tape library." Trimmer i-fi-128, 44. These
barcodes "allow the system ... to monitor virtual tapes in a virtual tape
library" and are used to "manage and select various virtual tapes," that are
"stored in the header extension ... for each block of data on a data disk [i.e.,
a "fixed non-volatile memory"]," and that "the contents of the physical data
storage device ... including its structure and virtual barcode are ... copied
to the virtual library." Trimmer i-fi-1 40, 48. In other words, Trimmer
discloses a fixed non-volatile memory (i.e., storage medium 18 or a "block
of data on a data disk") that stores media management records that uniquely
identify the removable tape cartridge containing data (i.e., stores a virtual
tape library that includes a bar code that identifies a virtual tape), as recited
in claim 1.
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Huebsch and
Trimmer because "the mere fact that both Huebsch and Trimmer disclose
tape libraries does not explain why a person would combine Huebsch and
Trimmer to create the media drive recited by the present claims." App. Br.
11.
Huebsch discloses a system for storing back-up data that includes a
storage unit containing tape drives, that back-up data in Huebsch is stored in
the storage unit and that the storage unit may include a "tape," that the data
is identified through the use of a "client ID tag" stored on a tape, and that
"those skilled in the art [would] recognize that other storage media may be
used." Huebsch 3:5, 12-14, 29-30, 51-53, Fig. 1. Hence, Huebsch
4
Appeal2014-008632
Application 11/589,544
discloses a non-volatile memory that stores media management records that
uniquely identify a tape cartridge containing desired back-up data and that
the non-volatile memory may include either a tape or "other storage media."
Although Huebsch discloses that either a tape or "other storage
media" may be used to store media management records that uniquely
identify a tape cartridge, the Examiner states that Huebsch does not disclose
explicitly that the system includes a fixed memory that stores the media
management records but that Trimmer makes up for this deficit of Huebsch.
We note that Trimmer also discloses a system for storing back-up data that
includes storing a bar code that "monitor[ s] virtual tapes in a virtual tape
library" and that is "stored in the header extension ... on a data disk."
Trimmer i-fi-1 40, 48. Hence, Trimmer discloses media management records
(i.e., a barcode) that is stored on a "data disk" (i.e., afixed non-volatile
memory).
We agree with the Examiner that Huebsch discloses storing media
management records on non-volatile memory that includes tapes or "other
storage media." We also agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have understood that "other storage media" includes "disks,
disk subsystems, [and] hard drives," as disclosed by Trimmer. In other
words, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the media
management records of Huebsch may be stored on tapes or "other storage
media," as disclosed by Huebsch and that "other storage media" includes the
known storage media of "disks, disk subsystems, hard drives," etc., which
include "fixed" media. Such a combination of known elements performing
their known functions would have resulted in no more than the predictable
result of storing data (e.g., media management records of Huebsch or
5
Appeal2014-008632
Application 11/589,544
Trimmer) on known storage media such as the known "fixed" media
disclosed by Trimmer. "The combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007).
Appellants provide similar arguments in support of claims 3, 6-11,
14--18, and 20. App. Br. 11-12. We are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments in support of these claims for at least the previously discussed
reasons.
Claims 4, 12, and 19 - Huebsch, Trimmer, Arakawa, and Microsoft
Appellants provide similar arguments in support of claims 4, 12, and
19 and do not provide additional arguments with respect to Microsoft. App.
Br. 12-13. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments in support of
these claims for at least the previously discussed reasons.
Claims 5 and 13 - Huebsch, Trimmer, Arakawa, and Anna
Appellants provide similar arguments in support of claims 5 and 13
and do not provide additional arguments with respect to Anna. App. Br. 13-
15. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments in support of these
claims for at least the previously discussed reasons.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6-11, 14--18, and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huebsch, Trimmer,
6
Appeal2014-008632
Application 11/589,544
and Arakawa; Claims 4, 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huebsch, Trimmer, Arakawa, and Microsoft; and claims 5
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huebsch,
Trimmer, Arakawa, and Anna.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7