Ex Parte Gaertner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

13839595 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/839,595
64776 7590
HolzerIPLaw, P.C.
FILING DATE
03/15/2013
08/23/2018
dba Holzer Patel Drennan
216 16th Street
Suite 1350
Denver, CO 80202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark A. Gaertner
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.
STL 17772.00 4268
EXAMINER
OTTO,ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2132
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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):
hiplaw@blackhillsip.com
docket@hpdlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK A. GAERTNER and BRIAN THOMAS EDGAR
Appeal2018-003073
Application 13/839,595
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JENNIFER S. BISK and CARL L.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-003073
Application 13/839,595
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-23. Final Act. 2. Claims 3, 10, and 16
have been cancelled. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Representative Claim
Representative claim 1 under appeal read as follows:
1. A method comprising:
individually sorting subsets of data blocks according to a
logical block address (LBA) order; and
writing the data blocks of each of the sorted subsets into
one or more individual granules in a granule storage area of
data storage, wherein each granule is dynamically constrained
to store data of a set range of LBAs and at least one granule is
filled with the data blocks of the sorted subsets arranged
according to a non-consecutive LBA order.
Br. 17 (Claims App'x).
Examiner's Rejection & References
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Sanvido (US 2009/0157940 Al, pub. June 18,
2009) ("Sanvido"), in view of Koltsidas et al. (US 2012/0131265 Al, pub.
May 24, 2012) ("Koltsidas"), and Chang et al. (US 2004/0103241 Al, pub.
May 27, 2004) ("Chang").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. Br. 6-15. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments.
Except as noted below, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set
1 The real party in interest is Seagate Technology LLC ( Br. 3).
2
Appeal2018-003073
Application 13/839,595
forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this appeal is taken
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2-15; Ans. 14--16. We
highlight the following additional points.
Appellants have presented several arguments explaining their position
that the Chang reference does not teach or suggest the features recited in the
pending claims. Br. 8-13.
Appellants' arguments are misdirected and are not persuasive.
Appellants are attacking the Chang reference, when the Examiner relies
upon Koltsidas for teaching the claimed features. See Ans. 14--16. Thus,
Appellants are challenging the wrong reference, and not responding to the
Examiner's specific findings. Appellants' challenge to the references
individually is not convincing of error in the Examiner's positions. See In re
Keller, 642 F .2d 413, 426 (CCP A 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references." (Citations omitted)).
We observe that no Reply Brief is of record to rebut the Examiner's
responses to Appellants' arguments.
Therefore, based on this record, we are not persuaded of error
regarding the Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness for claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-23.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and
17-23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
3
Appeal2018-003073
Application 13/839,595
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±)
AFFIRMED
4