Ex Parte KolovsonDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesDec 11, 200911044962 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 11, 2009) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation