Ex Parte KoesterDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201712349300 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017) Copy Citation % 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation