Ex Parte Kolovson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 11, 2009

11044962 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 11, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte CURT KOLOVSON
________________

Appeal 2009-001971
Application 11/044,962
Technology Center 2100
________________

Decided: December 11, 2009
________________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, JAY P. LUCAS, and JOHN A. JEFFERY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2009-001971
Application 11/044,962

2
Invention
In one embodiment, a method of managing cache memory in a storage
controller comprises receiving, at the storage controller, a cache hint
generated by an application executing on a remote processor, wherein the
cache hint identifies a memory block managed by the storage controller, and
managing a cache memory operation for data associated with the memory
block in response to the cache hint received by the storage controller.
(Spec. 30, Abstract; Fig. 6.)

Representative Claim
1. A method of managing cache memory in a storage
controller, comprising:
receiving, at the storage controller, a cache hint generated by an
application executing on a remote processor, wherein the cache hint
identifies a memory block managed by the storage controller; and
managing a cache memory operation for data associated with
the memory block in response to the cache hint received by the
storage controller.

Prior Art and Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
anticipation and unpatentability:
Misinai U.S. 5,848,241 Dec. 8, 1998
Kao U.S. 7,234,019 B1 Jun. 19, 2007
(filed Dec. 12, 2003)

Appeal 2009-001971
Application 11/044,962

3
Claims 1-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Misinai. Additionally, claims 29-32 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner relies on Misinai
in view of Kao.

Claim Groupings
Within the § 102 rejection, Appellant’s arguments treat independent
claim 1 as representative of the subject matter of independent claims 1, 10,
19, and 28. We do so likewise. Separate arguments are presented for
corresponding features recited in dependent claims 2-8, 11-17, and 20-26.
The subject matter of dependent claims 2-8 is considered to be
representative of the other corresponding claims depending from
independent claims 10 and 19 respectively. Lastly, the subject matter of
dependent claims 29-32, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is treated
collectively.

ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Misinai
teaches essentially all of the subject matter of representative independent
claim 1 on appeal with a particular emphasis on the recitation of the “cache
hint”?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant’s Specification as filed teaches in part the following:
Appeal 2009-001971
Application 11/044,962

4
To facilitate efficient management of cache memory
resources, a controller may be configured to receive cache
management hints generated by higher-level software
applications and to manage the cache resource in response to
the received cache management hints. In one implementation, a
cache management hint may be embodied as a message that
provides a suggestion to the NSC [Network Storage Controller]
such as NSC 410a, 410b regarding how the data passed by the
application should be managed in cache memory. The NSC
may be configured to receive and to respond to cache
management hints. . . .

(¶ [0036].)
2. Misinai’s resource sharing facility (RSF) is generally
represented in alternative embodiments in Figures 5 and 6. Most of the
figures in this reference relate to plural, remote processors having a common
accessibility to commonly stored data through various intersystem links,
where the facility includes embodiments with different levels of cache
storage elements. Figure 7 illustrates the request for a block of information
from one of these caches in a read operation with corresponding write
operations illustrated in Figure 9. Figure 8 illustrates the logical components
within the facility for accessing data when accessed by a program 100.
Figure 10 illustrates how an interest registration is grouped and how it
relates to data items and processes.
The discussion of prior art Figure 1, at column 6, lines 47-54,
illustrates a functionality known in the cache memory art that controllers try
to predict, utilizing general statistical rules, which data will most probably
be needed repeatedly in order to decide what to keep and what to dispense
with. The teachings at column 9, lines 17-47, generally relate to the ability
Appeal 2009-001971
Application 11/044,962

5
to register interest in a particular data item contained in a local cache buffer,
some of which features the artisan would understand are illustrated in Figure
10. In this regard, the Examiner has relied upon the following portions of
Misinai:
Thus an RSF may replace IBM's Coupling Facility with no
changes to the programs that use it. However, in order to benefit from
the real potential of the RSF, some changes to the programs may still
be needed. In order to minimize these changes, a special formulation
of the lock request is provided. This special formulation enables the
program to tell the RSF that the current lock request will be followed
by a read for a given data item. When RSF encounters such a request
it tries to improve the chances that the read request will find the
record in the medium-level cache. To do so, the RSF responds to the
user as in a normal lock request, but continues, behind the scene, to
read the data from secondary storage, when the lock has been granted.

(Col. 14, ll. 16-29.)
An interest registration request may be sent by a program 100
to the RSF 800 as part of a read or write request. When reading a data
item form an RSF database, interest may also be registered for another
data item; the idea here is to enable a process that is interested in a set
of data items in the RSF database to monitor the whole set through a
registration of interest in a single data item that is changed (through
the database triggering mechanism) upon every interesting change in
the set. When properly formulated, a combined request to the RSF
may have the following semantics: “try to read an element that
satisfies selection criteria ; if none exists, register interest for data
item ”. Tiggers are expected to update data item whenever a
new data item satisfies .

is the data item that was defined as the (possibly Virtual)
Representative data item of .

(Col. 15, l. 62 to col. 16, l. 10.)
Appeal 2009-001971
Application 11/044,962

6

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over
the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope
of the claim. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications
not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim
must then be compared with the prior art.

ANALYSIS
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer as to the arguments presented with
respect to each independent claim on appeal. Our discussions will be limited
to the following points of emphasis.
Appellant’s approach in the principal and reply briefs appears to
predicate patentability on the terminology “cache hint” as distinguishing
over the teachings of Misinai within § 102. Appellant’s own concept of this
term is very broad as reproduced in Finding of Fact 1 from the Specification
as filed. The functionality of hinting or otherwise suggesting or indicating
Appeal 2009-001971
Application 11/044,962

7
has been well documented in the specific portions of the Answer relied upon
by the Examiner at columns 14, 15, and 16 reproduced in Finding of Fact 2.
Additionally, we have noted the plural or remote computer environment, the
ability to isolate and select as well as manage selectable blocks of
information within a cache memory environment. Significantly, we have
also identified what the artisan would understand would be prior art
approaches of a so-called “cache hint” from the prior art approach of looking
ahead or predicting which data will be most likely and repeatedly used in a
cache memory from the discussion relating to column 6 in Finding of Fact 2.
Significantly, the concept of registering interest in a data item that the
Examiner makes significant use of and we have embellished other teachings
relating to it clearly relates to the broad concept of a cache hint to the extent
broadly recited in representative independent claim 1 on appeal.
As such, we strongly disagree with Appellant’s general assertions that
substantially all of independent claim 1 has not been taught to an artisan
within 35 U.S.C. § 102 in the rejection of record and within the teachings of
Misinai. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of representative independent
claim 1 as well as of dependent claims 9, 18, and 27 since no arguments
have been presented in the Brief as to these claims.
On the other hand, we part company with the Examiner’s reasoning to
reject representative dependent claims 2-8 within 35 U.S.C. § 102. The
features recited in these claims relate to the more specific types of cache
hints corresponding to the disclosed features in Figures 8-11. The
Examiner’s responsive arguments beginning at page 8 of the Answer as to
these claims appear to rely upon broad, subjective interpretations that the
Appeal 2009-001971
Application 11/044,962

8
Examiner believes the artisan would take from the teachings in Misinai and
alleged common knowledge in the art as well. Because of the specific
nature of the recitations in dependent claims 2-8, we decline to speculatively
agree with the Examiner’s positions as to these claims for the specific types
of functionality and types of cache hints that are recited in these claims.
Stated differently, more evidence needs to be presented for us to agree with
the Examiner’s positions with respect to these claims. Therefore, the
rejection of representative dependent claims 2-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is
reversed. We reach a similar conclusion regarding dependent claims 11-17
and 20-26 which recite commensurate limitations.
Lastly, turning to the rejection under § 103 of dependent claims
29-32, Appellant’s arguments at page 18 of the principal Brief do not argue
that Misinai and Kao are not properly combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103
and do not contest what the Examiner relies upon in Kao. In substance,
Appellant’s arguments appear to relate to the subject matter set forth in the
respective parent independent claims. Moreover, Appellant’s closing
comments at page 23 of the Reply Brief rely for patentability of these claims
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 upon the arguments presented with respect to
parent independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 28. Therefore, the rejection of
claims 29-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.

CONCLUSION AND DECISION
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Misinai teaches the subject matter of claims 1, 9, 10, 18, 19, 27, and 28, all
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We have reversed the rejection of
Appeal 2009-001971
Application 11/044,962

9
dependent claims 2-8, 11-17, and 20-26, also all rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102. Lastly, we have affirmed the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
dependent claims 29-32. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner is
affirmed-in-part.
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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528