Ex Parte Lubbers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2015

11771492 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CLARK EDWARD LUBBERS and STEPHEN J. SICOLA
___________

Appeal 2012-007225
Application 11/771,492
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KEVIN F. TURNER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 120 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to a virtual storage space formed from a
physical memory comprising of a plurality of larger grains of storage
capacity wherein each is divided into a power of two number of smaller
grains. Specification 1.

Appeal 2012-007225
Application 11/771,492

2

Representative Claim
1. A method comprising mapping a physical memory to
a virtual storage space comprising a plurality of larger grains of
virtual storage capacity, an entirety of each larger grain divided
into a power of two number of smaller grains that is greater
than two smaller grains, and distributing each of the larger
grains to form an entire stripe across a non-power of two
number of storage elements collectively defining the physical
memory so that each of the storage elements receives the same
number of the smaller grains.
Appeal Brief, 22.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–6, 9, 10, and 13–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Lubbers 062 (US Patent Number 7,237,062 B2;
issued June 26, 2007). Answer 4–9.
Claims 7 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lubbers and Kim (US Patent Number 6,718,436 B2;
issued April 6, 2004). Answer 9–11.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lubbers and Strange (US Patent Number 7,111,147 B1;
issued September 19, 2006). Answer 11–12.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lubbers and Lubbers 042 (US Patent Number 7,007,042
B2; issued February 28, 2006). Answer 12–13.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lubbers and Chiu (US Patent Number 6,587,921 B2;
issued July 1, 2003). Answer 13–14.

Appeal 2012-007225
Application 11/771,492

3

ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 3, 2012) and the Answer (mailed
January 31, 2012) and the Reply Brief (filed April 2, 2012) for the respective
details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
Appellants contend, “[Lubbers 062] does not identically disclose any
embodiment wherein at least the entire large grain is divided into a power of
two number of smaller grains and is distributed to form an entire stripe
across a non-power of two number of physical memory elements as featured
by claim 1 and 10.” Appeal Brief 16 (emphasis omitted). Appellants’
Specification is silent in regard to the formation of an entire stripe
distribution as claimed. See Appeal Brief 3 (citing Specification 7:21–23;
10:2–4). Appellants cite Figures 9 and 11 to provide additional support for
the limitation wherein the figures disclose rows of blocks with some of the
blocks cross hatched and some of the blocks clear. Appeal Brief 3. Hence
the criticality of the claimed distribution has not been established.
However, the Examiner finds Lubbers 062 anticipates the claimed
invention because Lubbers 062 discloses the employment of data blocks.
Answer 5 (citing Lubbers 062’s Figure 5A, column 4, lines 60–67; column
6, lines 20–35). The employment of grains in the data storage technology is
well known, however, Lubbers 062 is silent in regard to the employment of
grains as they are claimed. The Examiner does not provide adequate
correlation between Lubbers 062’s disclosed data blocks and the grains
disclosed in the claimed invention. Therefore, we are constrained by the
record to reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims
Appeal 2012-007225
Application 11/771,492

4

1 and 10, both commensurate in scope. We also reverse the Examiner’s
anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 2–9 and 11–20 for the
same reasons articulated above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1–6, 9, 10, and
13–17 is reversed.
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 7, 8, 11, 12
and 18–20 are reversed.

REVERSED

llw