Ex Parte Koester

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

12349300 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 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.
12/349,300 01/06/2009 Michael J. Koester SJ0920080072US1 4752
45216 7590 09/27/2017
Knn7ler T aw firm in
EXAMINER
50 W. Broadway
10th Floor
ALSIP, MICHAEL
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2136
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 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):
docket @ kunzlerlaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL J. KOESTER1
Appeal 2017-005119
Application 12/349,300
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 17—20, and 22, which are all the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-005119
Application 12/349,300
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “erasing] data from a storage device with
the use of a multiple-write secure erasure technique.” Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for performing a dynamic data security erasure,
comprising:
selecting a set of extents in a storage system for erasure in
response to a single channel command word;
making writable free space a first set of extents by the
storage system during an erasure of the selected set of extents,
wherein each of the first set of extents is writable and a number
of the first set of extents is equivalent to a number of the selected
set of extents, and making unwritable the selected set of extents
by the storage system in response to the channel command word,
wherein writeable free space of the storage system is not
decreased during erasure of the selected set of extents;
erasing the selected set of extents with a plurality of
asynchronous background write operations a specified number
of times upon the selected set of extents in response to the
channel command word; and
making the selected set of extents unwritable by the
storage system upon completion of the erasure process in
response to the channel command word.
REFERENCES
US 2004/0188710 A1 Sep. 30, 2004
US 2007/0214316 A1 Sep. 13, 2007
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 17 and 22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
§ U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by Koren. Final Act. 2—8.
Koren
Kim
2
Appeal 2017-005119
Application 12/349,300
Claims 2-4, 7, 10—12 and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Koren and Kim. Final Act.
9-10.
OPINION
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 17 and 22 based
on arguments for claim 1. Br. 16. Appellant argues the rejection of claims
2—4, 7, 10—12 and 18—20 only on the basis that Kim does not disclose what
Koren lacks with respect to the independent claims. Id. 16—17.
Accordingly, our decision with respect to claim 1 is dispositive. We do not
address the remaining claims further, except in our ultimate decision.
Appellant’s arguments alleging error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 (Br. 10—16) are unpersuasive of error for the reasons stated by the
Examiner (Final Act. 2—4, Ans. 2-4). We adopt the Examiner’s findings.
Id. We provide the following for emphasis.
Appellant argues that, because Koren describes “the number of
writable blocks is decreased during erasure because the blocks on the NAND
flash chip that is being erased are unwritable,” Koren does not describe
“making writable free space a first set of extents by the storage system
during an erasure of the selected set of extents. as recited in claim 1. Br.
15. See also id. 10—16.
Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of error. Instead, we are
persuaded by the Examiner’s additional finding that, in Koren, “during the
actual erasing the old block is currently busy being erased (unwritable) and
the new replacement block has already replaced the old block and thus the
number of writable blocks does not decrease during the time that the old
block is being erased.” Ans. 2—3 (citing Koren || 54, 60, and 63).
3
Appeal 2017-005119
Application 12/349,300
Appellant also argues Koren does not describe “making the selected
set of extents unwritable by the storage system upon completion of the
erasure process in response to the channel command word” because, in
Koren, “after a block or NAND flash chip is erased, the erased block or
blocks are writable as the status for the NAND flash chip is set to ‘ready’.”
Br. 16 (citing Koren 147).
Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of error. Instead, we are
persuaded by the Examiner’s additional finding that “a free block [in Koren]
is a block that is only written to when the system chooses to allocate that
block and thus is not writable just by being on a free list of blocks.” Ans. 4
(citing Koren || 60, 63). The Examiner finds:
The only apparent difference between a writable and unwritable
extent, as claimed, is a designation that the block is currently not
to be written to and a free block is not to be written to until
allocated. There is no claimed condition or bit that must be met
for a block to be unwritable other than it having been just erased.
Answer 4. We do not find a persuasive rebuttal to the Examiner’s additional
reasoning.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—4, 6, 7, 9—12,
14, 17-20, and 22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4