Ex Parte Leete et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 22, 2010

10404732 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 22, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BRIAN A. LEETE and CARL I. GREEN
____________________

Appeal 2008-005652
Application 10/404,732
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: June 22, 2010
____________________

Before: THU A. DANG, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2008-005652
Application 10/404,732

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-11 and 14-27. Claims 12 and 13 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We REVERSE.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention related to computer memory
power backup. (Spec., 2, [0002]). Appellants seek to address the limitations
in the use of cache memory as a storage device, such as losing data during a
power failure affecting the cache memory (Spec. 2, [0004]).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim(s)
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:

1. A memory system comprising:

a first memory;

a second memory coupled to the first memory and to a
host, the second memory to transfer data between the first
memory and the host; and a backup power source, the backup
power source providing power to the first memory and the
second memory if a main power source fails;

wherein a size of the second memory is set based at least
in part on an amount of backup power that is available from the
backup power source.

Appeal 2008-005652
Application 10/404,732

3
Prior Art
Byers US 5,828,823 Oct. 27, 1998

Rejections
Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 14-21, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Byers.
Claims 6-8, 10, 22-25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Byers.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

(1) Appellants argue claims 1-5, 9, 11, 14-21 and 26 as a group on the
basis of claim 1 (App. Br. 9-14). We select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim. We will, therefore, treat claims 2-5, 9, 11, 14-21 and
26 as standing or falling with representative claim 1
(2) Appellants argue dependent claims 6-8, 10, 22-25, and 27 as a
group on the basis of claim 1 (id. at 14-15). We will, therefore, treat claims
6-8, 10, 22-25, and 27 as standing or falling with representative claim 1.
(3) Appellants argue claims 7, 8, and 25 separately (App. Br. 14-15)
and thus, we will address each of these claims independently.
We accept Appellants’ grouping of the claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 1-5, 9, 11, 14-21 and 26
Appellants argue that Byers only suggests that the memory might
have various different power structures not that the size of the memory is
based on the amount of backup power that is available (App. Br. 11-13).
Appeal 2008-005652
Application 10/404,732

4
Indeed, Appellants argue the system of Byers does not set memory size
based upon power, but instead, discloses realizing backup power saving
since only the data save disk module and the memory module need be
powered (App. Br. 12). Appellants thus contend that due to the lack of
nexus between the size of the memory and the amount of backup power of
the system disclosed in Byers, Byers does not describe “a size of the second
memory is based at least in part on an amount of backup power that is
available from the backup power source”, as recited in claim 1. (App. Br.
14).
The Examiner finds Byers describes dividing the outbound cache into
two portion, each having their own power domains defined by the ability for
the backup power supply to handle them (Ans. 13-14).

Issue: Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding “a
size of the second memory is based at least in part on an amount of backup
power that is available from the backup power source” as recited in
claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Byers
(1) Byers is directed toward a method and apparatus for efficiently
downloading and/or uploading critical data elements between a computer's
memory and a data save disk system, when a primary power source’s failure
is detected. The data save disk system is coupled directly to the memory
module allowing the data elements in the memory module to be downloaded
Appeal 2008-005652
Application 10/404,732

5
directly to the data save disk system without any intervention by a host
computer. (Abstract).
(2) Non-volatile memory 130 may be in both power domain-A and
power domain-B allowing the nonvolatile memory 130 to function when
either power supply is active. Nonvolatile memory 130 may have a first
portion in power domain-A and a second portion in power domain-B. Power
domain-A and power domain-B may each have a primary power source and
a secondary power source. (Col. 8, ll. 35-58).
(3) The primary power sources may comprise a universal power
source (UPS) while the backup power sources may comprise a limited power
source such as a battery. Since typical batteries may provide power to a
computer system for only a limited time, some computer systems may
require a large battery or multiple batteries to supply the necessary power.
Additionally, the duration of the battery source may be very limited if the
computer system’s power requirements are substantial. (Col. 11, ll. 36-45).
(4) In embodiments described, (1) the backup power source 562
may only power a first portion of nonvolatile memory 540, host interface
adapter 534, system interface 536, and data save disk system 552 and (2) the
backup power source 566 may only power a second portion of nonvolatile
memory 540, host interface adapter 544, system interface 546, and data save
disk system 556. The remainder of computer system 500, including
instruction processor 512, I/O processor 516, host main storage 510, and
host disk storage 520, may not be powered after the primary power source
fails. (Col. 11, ll. 48-58).

Appeal 2008-005652
Application 10/404,732

6
ANALYSIS
We find the portions of Byers cited by the Examiner do not disclose
“the size of the second memory is set based at least in part on an amount of
backup power that is available from the backup power source.” Instead, we
find Byers describes determining the amount of backup power necessary
based on the computer system itself (FF 2, FF 3, and FF 4). Byers
specifically discloses that each portion of the non-volatile memory may have
a primary and secondary power source (FF 2). Byers further discusses that
some computer systems may need fewer or more batteries of larger or
smaller sizes based on the system itself (FF 3). Lastly, Byers describes what
each of the backup power sources disclosed powers (FF 4). However, the
Examiner has not shown that Byers discloses that the size of the second
memory is set based at least in part on an amount of backup power available
from the backup power sources as recited in claim 1 (and commensurate
language in claims 11 and 19). Byers describes the reverse.
Accordingly, we find Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 1, 11, and 19 for anticipation by Byers and
thus, in rejecting claims 2-5, 9, 14-18, 20, 21, and 26.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 6-8, 10, 22-25, and 27
Claims 6-8, 10, 22-25, and 27 depend from claims 1, 11, and 19;
therefore, for the reasons set forth above, we find Appellants have shown the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6-8, 10, 22-25, and 27.

Appeal 2008-005652
Application 10/404,732

7
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in finding the invention as
recited in claims 1-5, 9, 11, 14-21 and 26 are anticipated by Byers.
Appellants have also shown the Examiner erred in concluding dependent
claims 6-8, 10, 22-25, and 27 are obvious over Byers and Official Notice.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 9, 11, 14-21 and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Byers is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6-8, 10, 22-25, and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Byers is reversed.

REVERSED

Vsh

INTEL/BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
SUNNYVALE CA 94085-4040