Ex Parte Katz et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 201813539632 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/539,632 07/02/2012 81310 7590 05/31/2018 Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple) P.O. BOX 398 Austin, TX 78767-0398 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Shachar Katz 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. 5888-83301 1295 EXAMINER GRULLON, FRANCISCO A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2132 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2018 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): patent_docketing@intprop.com ptomhkkg@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHACHAR KATZ and OREN GOLOV 1 Appeal2017-008903 Application 13/539,632 Technology Center 2100 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-22, 24, and 25, all the pending claims in the present application. Claims 3, 5, 13, 15, and 23 are canceled (see Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. The present invention relates generally to a method for data storage (see Spec., Abstract). 1 Appellants name Apple Inc. as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2). Appeal2017-008903 Application 13/539,632 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for data storage, comprising: receiving, by a processor, a plurality of data items for storage in a memory, including at least first data items that are associated with a first data source and second data items that are associated with a second data source, wherein the first and second data items are interleaved with one another over time; wherein the first data items are associated with a first stream of logical block addresses (LB As) and the second data items are associated with a second stream of LB As; de-interleaving the first data items from the second data items, by identifying a respective data source with which each received data item is associated; and storing the de-interleaved first data items and the de- interleaved second data items in the memory, wherein storing the first data items comprises caching the first data items prior to storage in a first cache memory, and wherein storing the second data items comprises caching the second data items prior to the storage in a second cache memory separate from the first cache memory; wherein identifying the respective data source with which each received data item is associated comprises: identifying received data items having sequential LBAs; determining if either of the first or second data streams spans across a boundary of a single command based on LBA sequentiality; maintaining a database of LB As that have been received from the first data source and the second data source; and comparing, by the processor, each received LBA to LBAs in the database to dynamically determine to which stream each received LBA belongs. Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yu (US 2009/0204872 Al, published August 13, 2009) and Dang (US 7,392,340 Bl, issued June 24, 2008) (Final Act. 5-12). 2 Appeal2017-008903 Application 13/539,632 We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Rejection under§ 103 (a) Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Yu and Dang collectively teach or suggest de-interleaving data items, as set forth in the claims? We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to the Appellants' arguments. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of the references teaches or suggests de- interleaving first data items from the second data items. As identified by Appellants, Dang "is directed simply [to] allocating a stream to a circular buffer in a cache memory, but is silent in its entirety as to whether the stream was transferred as being interleaved or de-interleaved ... [thus] it cannot be said that Dang's recited operation affirmatively performs [any] de-interleaving" (App. Br. 17). Appellants further contend, and we agree, that "in alleging that Dang teaches de-interleaving, it thus follows that interleaving would have [had to] occurred at some point during the transfer of data" (Reply Br. 5). Stated differently, we agree with Appellants that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that "de- interleaving" cannot occur if an "interleaving" step is not done first. Although the Examiner finds that "Dang has been cited for its teachings of de-interleav[ing] ... [because] Dang's stream detection engine 3 Appeal2017-008903 Application 13/539,632 detects multiple streams and allocates streams to a circular buffer in the cache" (Ans. 10), i.e., "the received streams are de-interleaved by storing each stream to a separate circular buffer" (id. at 11 ), the Examiner fails to illustrate that Dang starts with interleaved streams. In fact, the Examiner states that "Dang is not relied on for its teaching of interleaving data" (see Ans. 11 ). Thus, we find that it is improbable that Dang can teach de- interleaving, if Dang does not teach interleaving at some point before or during the transfer of data. We also find that Dang' s "storing each stream to a separate circular buffer" (Ans. 10-11, citing Dang 4:23--44, 61---67, 5:1-23) falls short of suggesting that such streams were de-interleaved. The ordinary and usual meaning of "interleaving" is arranging in alternate fashion. Merriam- Webster 's Collegiate Dictionary, p. 631 (9th Edition 1990). This is consistent with Appellants' disclosure (see Fig. 2, Spec. 9:22-27). Thus, "de-interleaving" would require reconstructing each stream. The Examiner fails to illustrate where/how Dang performs such an action. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Dang teaches de- interleaving, as recited in each of the independent claims. The Examiner also has not found that Yu teaches this feature. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-22, 24, and 25. 4 Appeal2017-008903 Application 13/539,632 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-22, 24, and 25 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation