Ex Parte Haswell

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 27, 2011

10737139 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 27, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte JONATHAN HASWELL
_____________

Appeal 2009-008144
Application 10/737,139
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2009-008144
Application 10/737,139

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and system for controlling
block-level storage on storage units. The system uses a policy manager in
association with an access manager to determine access patterns and to
select a RAID level of protection based upon the level of access. See Spec:
2-4. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A filing system controlling block-level storage on a plurality
of storage units, comprising:
a policy manager comprising at least one rule relating to
block-level storage for a RAID level of protection for a file
stored on the plurality of storage units, the RAID level of
protection being selected from a plurality of RAID levels of
protection, and at least one rule being based on an access
pattern of files stored on the plurality of storage units, the filing
system comprising information for each data block of the file
indicating a number of other files in the filing system that
require the data block for providing parity information for
rebuilding each of the other files based on a parity calculation;
and
an access manager providing the policy manager with
information relating to access patterns of files stored on the
plurality of storage units.

REFERENCES
Nishida US 5,677,900 Oct. 14, 1997

Styczinski US 5,960,169 Sep. 28, 1999
Appeal 2009-008144
Application 10/737,139

3

Velez-McCaskey US 6,098,128 Aug. 1, 2000

Gotoh US 6,223,300 B1 Apr. 24, 2001

Rudoff US 6,636,878 B1 Oct. 21, 2003
(Jan. 16, 2001)

Frey, Jr. US 6,742,137 B1 May 25, 2004
(filed Aug. 17, 1999)

Bright US 7,058,819 B2 Aug. 1, 2006
(filed Dec. 20, 2001)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE1
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Velez-McCaskey in view of Rudoff and
Nishida. Ans. 3-5.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Velez-McCaskey in view of Rudoff, Nishida, and Bright.
Ans. 5-6.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Velez-McCaskey in view of Rudoff, Nishida, and Gotoh. Ans. 6-7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Velez-McCaskey in view of Rudoff, Nishida, and Styczinski. Ans. 7.
Claims 15-20, 24-26, 28-33, 35, 36, and 38-40 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Velez-McCaskey in view of
Rudoff, Nishida, and Frey. Ans. 7-11.

1 The Examiner withdraws the non-statutory obviousness-type double
patenting rejection in order to reduce the issues at appeal. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2009-008144
Application 10/737,139

4
Claims 22 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Velez-McCaskey in view of Rudoff, Nishida, Frey, and
Styczinski. Ans. 11-12.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Velez-McCaskey in view of Rudoff, Nishida, Frey, and
Gotoh. Ans. 12.
Claims 27 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Velez-McCaskey in view of Rudoff, Nishida, and Frey.
Ans. 12-13.

ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 5-10 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12-14 is in error.
Appellant selects independent claim 1 as representative of the group
comprising claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12-14. App. Br. 9. Appellant argues
that none of the references discloses either expressly or impliedly the subject
matter of the claims. App. Br. 6. Additionally, Appellant argues that it
would not have been obvious to combine Rudoff and Nishida with Velez-
McCaskey. App. Br. 6.
Thus, with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12-14, Appellant’s
contentions present us with two issues. First, did the Examiner err in finding
that Velez-McCaskey, Rudoff, and Nishida disclose the claimed subject
matter? Second, did the Examiner err in finding it obvious to combine
Rudoff and Nishida with Velez-McCaskey?
Appellant argues on pages 10-16 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 7, 8, 11 and 15-40 are in error. Appellant
Appeal 2009-008144
Application 10/737,139

5
makes the same arguments with respect to these claims as with respect to
claim 1. App. Br. 10-16.
Thus, with respect to the rejections claims 4, 7, 8, and 11and 15-40,
Appellant’s contentions present us with the same issues as claim 1.

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. The limitations of claim 1 are listed above.
Appellant argues that the Examiner does not show how the references either
expressly or impliedly disclose the limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 6.
However, the Examiner has explicitly listed citations to each of the
references where the indicated limitations are found. Ans. 3-4. Since
Appellant’s arguments do not address these specific findings by the
Examiner, we do not find Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive.
Appellant submits that Velez-McCaskey requires parity information
to be recorded on a “parity drive surface,” whereas, Nishida requires parity
information to be sequentially recorded on the storage medium with the data.
App. Br. 7. As a result, Appellant argues that it would not have been
obvious to combine Nishida with Velez-McCaskey since the combination
changes the principle of operation of both references, i.e., where the parity
information is stored. App. Br. 7. We disagree.
The Examiner finds that modifying Velez-McCaskey’s system to
include parity information with the data, as taught by Nishida, rather than in
another area, as taught by Velez-McCaskey, would “provide error detection
and correction when the data files are rebuil[t]” (citing Nishida, col. 1, ll. 29-
Appeal 2009-008144
Application 10/737,139

6
33). Ans. 4. We do not find, nor does Appellant indicate, how changing
where a piece of information is stored changes the principle operation of
either reference.
In response, Appellant argues “that the proffered reasoning is nothing
more than a conclusory statement without any support.” App. Br. 8. We
disagree. We find that the Examiner’s motivation to combine the references
is not a conclusory statement since, as noted above; the Examiner finds an
articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning within the Nishida
reference supporting the proposed modification. Ans. 4. Since Appellant’s
arguments do not address the specific motivation found by the Examiner, we
do not find Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive.
For the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 and claims 2-3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12-14 that have been grouped with
claim 1. Consequently, Appellant’s similar arguments with respect to claims
4, 7-8, 11, and 15-40 are likewise not persuasive.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Velez-McCaskey, Rudoff,
and Nishida disclose the claimed subject matter.
The Examiner did not err in finding it obvious to combine Rudoff and
Nishida with Velez-McCaskey.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-40 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2009-008144
Application 10/737,139

7

AFFIRMED

ELD