Ex Parte Hostetter et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 2, 2016

13018192 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/018,192 0113112011 David G. Hostetter
51344 7590 05/04/2016
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.
ORAl 10065PUS 8109
EXAMINER
LE, DIEU MINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2114
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2016 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 DAVID G. HOSTETTER and JOHN STEVEN HERRON
Appeal2014-008030
Application 13/018,192
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Oracle International Corporation as the real party in
interest. (Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-008030
Application 13/018,192
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to storing read-only partition
identifiers associated with partitions on magnetic tape. (Abstract.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for writing data on a magnetic tape having a
plurality of partitions and accessed by a tape drive having an
associated tape drive processor in communication with a host
computer having an associated host processor, the method
compnsmg:
storing a read-only partition identifier associated with
each of the plurality of partitions;
comparing a requested write partition identifier with the
stored read-only partition identifiers; and
writing data to the requested write partition only if the
associated read-only identifier indicates that the requested write
partition is not a read-only partition.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Rushton et al. (US 7,075,874 B2; issued July 11, 2006).
(Final Act. 2-8.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue:2
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 24, 2014); the Final
Office Action (mailed Sept. 25, 2013); and the Examiner's Answer (mailed
May 7, 2014) for the respective details.
2
Appeal2014-008030
Application 13/018,192
Whether Rushton discloses the independent claim 1 limitation,
"storing a read-only partition identifier associated with each of the plurality
of partitions," and the similar limitation recited in independent claims 11 and
17. (Br. 4--5.)
ANALYSIS
For the claim limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure
in Rushton of a "partition/allocation unit" that partitions data and allocates
the data to the write heads of the tape drive. (Ans. 11-12; Rushton, Fig. 3,
col. 5, 11. 20-26, col. 7, 1. 51---col. 8, 1. 4.) As Appellants correctly point out,
this provision for organizing data as it is written to tape does not address the
claim requirement of storing a read-only partition identifier associated with
each partition on the tape. (Br. 4--5.) Rushton only discloses a read-only
identifier associated with an entire tape - an aspect of the prior art
specifically distinguished in the Specification. (Rushton, col. 8, 11. 29-32;
Spec. iTiT 3--4.)
The Examiner does not cite any portion of Rushton that discloses the
claim element at issue. In particular, we are unable to find any teaching in
the cited portions of Rushton of an identifier associated with each of the
plurality of partitions such that data is written to the requested write partition
only if the associated identifier indicates that the requested write partition is
not a read-only partition, as required by the claims.
Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to find the
Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1, 11, and 17.
3
Appeal2014-008030
Application 13/018,192
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the anticipation
rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 1 7. We also do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20, which claims
depend from claims 1, 11, or 1 7.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
4