Ex Parte GOTO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 6, 2017

13676205 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2017)

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.
13/676,205 11/14/2012 MAYUMI GOTO JP920110098US1_8150-0312 3379
73109 7590 02/08/2017
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, EL 33498
EXAMINER
BLUST, JASON W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2137
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2017 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAYUMI GOTO, NORIAKI TAKATSU, and ATSUSHIYOKOI
Appeal 2016-000727
Application 13/676,2051
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-24, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Microsoft Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-000727
Application 13/676,205
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to performing data processing for data
sets stored in each of a plurality of storage devices. Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. An information processing apparatus that performs data
processing for data sets stored in each of a plurality of storage
devices, comprising:
a central processing unit programmed to initiate
executable operations comprising:
collecting access data indicating details of accesses to each
of the plurality of storage devices;
computing predicted changes in access frequency for each
of the storage devices on the basis of the access data for each of
the plurality of storage devices in response to a request to reserve
a storage area for storing a new data set; and
selecting, among the plurality of storage devices, a storage
device in which the storage area for storing the new data set is to
be reserved, on the basis of the predicted changes for each
storage device.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rubio et al. (US 2012/0173831 Al;
July 5, 2012). Final Act. 4-16.
Claims 3, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rubio and Ulrich et al. (US 2008/0126704 Al; May 29,
2008). Final Act. 17-21.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rubio and Taylor et al. (US 6,912,585 B2; June 28, 2005).
Final Act. 21-26.
2
Appeal 2016-000727
Application 13/676,205
Claims 7-10, 16, 17, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rubio, Taylor, and Yagi et al. (US
2005/0038959 Al; Feb. 17, 2005). Final Act. 26-37.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the 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. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Rubio does not teach or suggest “collecting access data indicating details of
accesses to each of the plurality of storage devices.” App. Br. 11; Reply Br.
2-3. In particular, Appellants argue Rubio teaches tracking access
frequency of allocated data, but Rubio is “indifferent to the particular
storage device being accessed.” App. Br. 11. Appellants argue the
Examiner has improperly “rewritten” the claim language by changing the
word “each” to “all” in “collecting access data indicating details of accesses
to each of the plurality of storage devices.” App. Br. 11.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Rubio teaches storage 354 and memory 322 may
comprise a combination of solid-state and mechanical storage devices,
3
Appeal 2016-000727
Application 13/676,205
which equates to the claimed “plurality of storage devices.” Ans. 37 (citing
Rubio 1 68). Rubio further teaches classifying storage locations into fast,
medium, or slow response times. Ans. 37 (citing Rubio 10-11). In other
words, Rubio teaches using “access data indicating details of accesses to
each of the plurality of storage devices” to determine the appropriate
classification. Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner
erred in finding Rubio teaches or suggests “collecting access data indicating
details of accesses to each of the plurality of storage devices,” as recited in
claim 1.
Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in finding Rubio teaches
or suggests “computing predicted changes in access frequency for each of
the storage devices.” App. Br. 10-12. Appellants’ argument for this
limitation is essentially the same as for the “collecting” limitation, which we
find unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Finally, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Rubio teaches
or suggests “selecting, among the plurality of storage devices, a storage
device in which the storage area for storing the new data set is to be
reserved, on the basis of the predicted changes for each storage device.” See
App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2^1. In particular, Appellants argue Rubio
teaches selecting among “storage locations” instead of “storage devices.”
App. Br. 12. Appellants argue an ordinarily skilled artisan “would recognize
that storage locations and storage devices are not one and the same.” Reply
Br. 3.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Rubio teaches storage locations are located on storage
devices. Ans. 38. Moreover, Rubio uses the terms storage location and
4
Appeal 2016-000727
Application 13/676,205
storage device interchangeably at times. See, e.g., Rubio ]Hf 12-13
(discussing “making room on the preferred (faster) areas of storage devices”
and noting that unnecessarily “reserving FAST memory locations wastes
system resources”). Accordingly, an ordinarily skilled artisan would
understand that the storage locations described in Rubio correspond directly
or indirectly to storage devices and Rubio’s teachings would, therefore, at
least suggest the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1. Appellants argue the patentability of independent claims 11 and 18
for the same reasons as claim 1. See App. Br. 9. We, therefore, sustain the
rejections of claims 11 and 18 for the same reasons. We also sustain the
rejections of dependent claims 4-10, 14-17, and 21-24, which were not
argued separately from their respective independent claims. See App. Br. 9,
14, and 15.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites “[t]he information processing apparatus according to
claim 1, wherein the central processing unit is further programmed to initiate
an executable operation comprising: taking an input of an expected duration
for which the new data set is expected to be used; and computing predicted
changes in access frequency for each storage device.”
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2 because
Rubio describes classifying data based on the type of space allocation
provided for the data, but this data is not “an input of an expected duration,”
as recited in claim 2. App. Br. 13, Reply Br. 4.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. Appellants
argue the teaching that “the system can provide an indication” of the
5
Appeal 2016-000727
Application 13/676,205
expected duration does not teach or suggest “taking as an input” the
expected duration. App. Br. 13. However, although claim 2 recites “taking
an input of an expected duration,” the claim does not recite the source of the
input. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Rubio teaches “taking an input of
an expected duration” by teaching using the type of space allocation
associated with data (PERM, TERM, or SPOOL) to determine an initial
access frequency grade for data. Ans. 38 (citing Rubio 149). The type of
space allocation associated with the data (e.g., PERM for permanent and
TEMP for temporary) corresponds to the “expected duration” and this data is
used as an input to determine an initial access frequency grade for data. Id.
Appellants’ argument assumes that the “input” must be from a source
other than the claimed “central processing unit,” but this requirement is not
recited in claims and Appellants have not provided persuasive argument that
the limitation should be imported from the Specification. Although the
claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the
specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, arguments must be
commensurate in scope with the actual claim language. In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). We, therefore, are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 2.
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 3, 12, 13, 19, and 20 for
the same reasons as claim 2. See App. Br. 9, 14. We, therefore, sustain the
rejections of claims 3, 12, 13, 19, and 20 for the same reasons.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-24.
6
Appeal 2016-000727
Application 13/676,205
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