Ex Parte Lecrone et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2013

11343152 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2013)

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.
11/343,152 01/30/2006 Douglas E. Lecrone EMS-07003 6262
52427 7590 02/15/2013
MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC
200 FRIBERG PARKWAY, SUITE 1001
WESTBOROUGH, MA 01581
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KIM T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DOUGLAS E. LECRONE, KEVIN C. HEASLEY,
VADIM LONGINOV, MARK J. HALSTEAD, DAVID MEIRI,
BENJAMIN W. YODER, and WILLIAM P. THIBODEAU
____________

Appeal 2010-008115
Application 11/343,152
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before STEVEN J. BARTLETT, Division 2 Support Manager.

ORDER RE-MAILING BOARD DECISION
The Decision on Appeal in this application mailed on January 10,
2013 was erroneously entered and has been closed in the Image File
Wrapper (IFW). Accordingly, the correct Decision on Appeal is herewith
attached to this order.
Appellants’ time for seeking rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1)
expires two (2) months from the mail date of this order.
Appeal 2010-008115
Application 11/343,152

2

If there are any questions pertaining to this Order, please contact the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board at 571-272-9797.

msc
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DOUGLAS E. LECRONE, KEVIN C. HEASLEY,
VADIM LONGINOV, MARK J. HALSTEAD, DAVID MEIRI,
BENJAMIN W. YODER, and WILLIAM P. THIBODEAU
__________

Appeal 2010-008115
Application 11/343,152
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008115
Application 11/343,152

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 21-40. Claims 1-20 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a computer-implemented method
of ordering data writes, which includes at least some of a plurality of
primary storage devices receiving a first plurality of data writes and causing
a cycle switch for the plurality of primary storage devices. (Abstract.)
Claim 21 is exemplary and reproduced below, with disputed limitation
in italics:
21. A computer-implemented method of ordering data
writes, comprising:
at least some of a plurality of primary storage devices
receiving a first plurality of data writes;
causing a cycle switch for the plurality of primary
storage devices wherein the first plurality of data writes are
associated with a particular cycle on each primary storage
device in the plurality of primary storage devices; and
at least some of the plurality of primary storage devices
receiving a second plurality of writes after initiating the cycle
switch wherein all of the second plurality of writes are
associated with a cycle different from the particular cycle on
each of the plurality of primary storage devices.

REJECTION
Claim 21 stands rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,054,883. Claims 21-40 stand
Appeal 2010-008115
Application 11/343,152

3
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Meiri et al. (U.S. Patent No.
6,898,685 B2; May 24, 2005 (Filed Mar. 25, 2003)).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’
argument (Reply Br. 4-5; App. Br. 6-7) that Meiri does not anticipate
independent claims 21 and 31, both of which recite the limitation “at least
some of a plurality of primary storage devices receiving a first plurality of
data writes.”
The Appellants contend Meiri teaches a single storage device (Meiri,
Abstract, Fig. 1) and does not show, teach, or suggest the recited plurality of
primary storage devices. (Reply Br. 4-6; App. Br. 6-7.) However, the
Examiner found that Meiri teaches the partitioning of a primary storage
device into multiple logical devices. (Ans. 12-13; Meiri col. 6, ll. 48-52, 60-
64, Figure 1.) Under the broadest reasonable construction of “plurality of
primary storage devices”, these partitions are a plurality of primary storage
devices. The Examiner concluded that the partitions of storage device 24
correspond to the limitation “a plurality of primary storage devices.” (Ans.
7, 12-13.) The Appellants have failed to show the Examiner’s interpretation
of “plurality of primary storage device” is inconsistent with Appellants’
specification. (Reply Br. 5-6.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument (Reply Br. 4-6; App.
Br. 7) that Meiri does not anticipate independent claims 21 and 31, because
Meiri does not disclose the the limitation “causing a cycle switch for the
plurality of primary storage devices wherein the first plurality of data writes
are associated with a particular cycle on each primary storage device in the
Appeal 2010-008115
Application 11/343,152

4
plurality of primary storage devices,” as recited by claim 21 and similarly
recited by claim 31.
The Appellants contend that Meiri does not teach cycle switching a
plurality of primary storage devices because
cycle switching a plurality of primary storage devices is
different than independently cycle switching a number of
individual primary storage devices. For example, independently
cycle switching a number of individual primary storage devices
would not provide the recited feature of the first plurality of
data writes being associated with a particular cycle on each
primary storage device in the plurality of primary storage
devices, since the particular cycle to which data writes are
associated would be somewhat random, and depend (at least in
part) upon the particular individual storage device to which a
particular data write is associated. (Reply Br. 4-5.)

The Examiner found (and the Appellants admit, App. Br. 6) that Meiri
teaches a plurality of data writes are provided to a primary storage device
that assigns a first sequence number to data writes begun after a first time
and before a second time. The primary storage device then assigns a second
sequence number, different from the first sequence number, to data writes
begun after the second time. (Ans. 14-15; App. Br. 6; Meiri col. 2, l. 66-col.
3, l. 22.) Therefore, the Examiner concluded that Meiri discloses “causing a
cycle switch for the plurality of primary storage devices wherein the first
plurality of data writes are associated with a particular cycle on each primary
storage device,” as recited by claim 21 and similarly recited by 31. (Ans. 7-
8, 14-15.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 21 and 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Appeal 2010-008115
Application 11/343,152

5
Claims 22-30 and 32-40 recite limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claims 21 and 31, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejections of claims 22-30 and 32-40.
We also note that the Examiner rejected claim 21 on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,054,883.
Appellants did not present arguments directed to this rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 21, pro forma.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21-40 is affirmed.
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

dw