Ex Parte Edling et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2016

12831441 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/831,441 07/07/2010 Dwayne A. Edling
51344 7590 02/19/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,C /Oracle America/ SUN I STK
1000 TOWN CENTER, TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
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.
SUNM 090115 PUSl 2438
EXAMINER
CHRZANOWSKI, MATTHEW R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2136
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2016 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DWAYNE A. EDLING, MARK L. WATSON,
and MICHAEL J. CORNWELL
Appeal2014-003826
Application 12/831,441
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 21-23, all the pending claims in the present
application. Claims 1-20 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to a data storage system for
use with a plurality of tape cartridges. See Abstract.
Appeal2014-003826
Application 12/831,441
Claims 21-23 are illustrative:
21. A method for operating a data storage system
compnsmg:
loading a set of tape cartridges into a plurality of tape
drives, each of the tape cartridges including tape media and flash
memory;
striping data across the tape media in the loaded set of
tape cartridges; and
storing metadata including formatting information for the
striped data on the flash memory of the loaded set of tape cartridges.
22. A method for operating a data storage system
compnsmg:
reading metadata from flash memory of a tape cartridge,
the metadata including hash values for stored data on tape media of
the tape cartridge;
loading the tape cartridge into a tape drive;
storing data onto the tape media in the loaded tape
cartridge, including performing data deduplication based on the hash
values; and
updating metadata corresponding to the stored data on
the flash memory of the loaded tape cartridge as needed.
23. A method for operating a data storage system
compnsmg:
reading metadata from flash memory of a tape cartridge,
the metadata including policy information for stored data on tape
media of the tape cartridge; and
controlling access to the stored data based on the policy
information.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
RI. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cappabianca (WO 97/45837, Dec. 4, 1997) and Rebalski
(US 6, 138,201, Oct. 24, 2000);
2
Appeal2014-003826
Application 12/831,441
R2. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cappabianca and Anglin (US 2009/0271454 Al, Oct. 29,
2009); and
R3. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cappabianca and Rosenau (WO 2006/070353 A2, July 6,
2006).
ANALYSIS
Claim 21
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of Rebalski and Cappabianca teach or suggest "storing metadata including
formatting information ... on the flash memory," as set forth in claim 21?
Appellants contend "Rebalski teaches that format information is
stored on tape media .... Therefore, Rebalski would have suggested to one
aware of Cappabianca that format information should be stored on
Cappabianca's tape media" (App. Br. 3). Appellants further contend that
"[t]o the extent Rebalski stores data other than to tape media, such storage is
directed to memory in Rebalski' s tape drive system - not memory included
on Rebalski's tape cartridges" (id.).
In response, the Examiner notes that Cappabianca is being relied upon
"to teach a plurality of types of metadata is stored on flash memory on each
tape cartridge, while Rebalski teaches different specific examples of
metadata include striped data" (Ans. 8).
Even if we agree with Appellants that Rebalski teaches storing format
information on tape media (see App. Br. 3), Appellants' contention fails to
3
Appeal2014-003826
Application 12/831,441
address the Examiner's findings that Cappabianca teaches storing metadata
on flash memory and what the collective teachings of Rebalski and
Cappabianca would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus,
Appellants' aforementioned contentions are ineffective to rebut the
Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCP A 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.") (citations omitted). This reasoning is applicable
here as Appellants only direct our attention to a single reference, i.e.,
Rebalski, and not the collective teachings. Importantly, Appellants fail to
address Cappabianca's teaching regarding storing of metadata information in
EEPROM memory (i.e., a flash memory). We note that arguments not made
are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21.
Claim 22
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of Anglin and Cappabianca teach or suggest "reading metadata from flash
memory ... the metadata including hash values," as set forth in claim 22?
Appellants contend that "[t]ypically, hash values for data
deduplication are stored on the same media as the stored data itself ....
Therefore, Anglin would suggest to one familiar with Cappabianca that the
4
Appeal2014-003826
Application 12/831,441
hash values for stored data on Cappabianca' s tape should also be stored on
Cappabianca's tape" (App. Br. 4 (citing Anglin i-f 52)).
The Examiner finds that "Cappabianca discloses cartridge flash
memory storing metadata, while Anglin discloses hash values for data
deduplication as a type of metadata used in a memory system" (Ans. 13).
We agree with the Examiner.
Although Appellants contend that hash values are typically stored on
the same media as the data itself, Appellants fail to rebut the Examiner's
findings that Cappabianca teaches that metadata, i.e., which can include hash
values, is stored on a different media, such as flash memory. It is the
combined teachings of Cappabianca and Anglin that the Examiner is relying
on to teach or suggest the claimed "reading metadata from flash memory ...
the metadata including hash values," and Appellants' contention again fail
to consider the collective teachings and what it would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, Appellants' aforementioned contentions
are ineffective to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellants only direct our attention to a single reference, i.e., Anglin, and
not the collective teachings. Importantly, Appellants again fail to address
Cappabianca' s teaching regarding storing of metadata information in
EEPROM memory (i.e., a flash memory).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 22.
Claim 23
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings
of Rosenau and Cappabianca teach or suggest "reading metadata from flash
5
Appeal2014-003826
Application 12/831,441
memory ... the metadata including policy information," as set forth in claim
23?
Appellants contend "Rosenan's policy information for data stored on
tape media is stored on a separate server. ... Therefore, Rosenau would
suggest to one familiar with Cappabianca that Cappabianca's policy
information should be stored on a separate server - not on memory of tape
cartridges" (App. Br. 4).
The Examiner finds that it "may be true" that Rosenan's policy
information is stored on a separate server, however, the rejection is based on
the combination of references and Cappabianca discloses storing a plurality
of types of metadata on flash memory of a tape cartridge (see Ans. 13-14 ).
We agree with the Examiner.
We find that the combined teachings of Rosenau and Cappabianca
would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the storage of policy
information is not limited to any particular medium, that is could be stored
on a separate server, as taught by Rosenau, or on flash memory, as taught by
Cappabianca.
Thus, Appellants' aforementioned contentions are ineffective to rebut
the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 23.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections Rl-R3.
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).
6
Appeal2014-003826
Application 12/831,441
AFFIRMED
7