Ex Parte Menon et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 12, 2012

10716136 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAISHANKAR MOOTHEDATH MENON
and KRISHNAKUMAR SURUGUCCHI
____________

Appeal 2009-013653
Application 10/716,136
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and BRUCE R.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013653
Application 10/716,136

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-14, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a technique for configuring a RAID-
configured storage system in which c redundancy information sectors are
associated with n data information sectors. The n data sectors and c
redundancy information sectors are then written as a single segment on a
single storage unit. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. A method for protecting data stored in a RAID-
configured storage system from uncorrectable media
errors, the RAID-configured storage system having a
plurality of storage units, the method comprising:

associating n data information disk sectors with c
redundancy information disk sectors, the c redundancy
information disk sectors being based on the n data
information disk sectors, and n and c being integer value
numbers greater than zero; and

writing the n data information disk sectors with c
redundancy information disk sectors on the same storage
unit.

Prior Art
Kaneda US 5,958,067 Sep. 28, 1999
Appeal 2009-013653
Application 10/716,136

3
Servi US 2004/0107400 A1 Jun. 3, 2004
Hetzler US 2005/0015700 A1 Jan. 20, 2005

Examiner’s Rejections
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Servi.
Claims 3, 8, 9, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Servi and Kaneda.
Claims 2, 4-7, and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Servi and Hetzler.

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Servi teaches “writing the n data
information disk sectors with c redundancy information disk sectors on the
same storage unit,” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appeal 2009-013653
Application 10/716,136

4
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner.
Appellants contend that the data points of Servi do not correspond to
the claimed data information disk sectors, and the parity points of Servi do
not correspond to the claimed redundancy information disk sectors. Br. 5.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not provided a line of reasoning to
find the claimed invention obvious in light of the teachings of the reference.
Br. 6-7. Appellants also contend that the Examiner is using impermissible
hindsight to make the rejection. Br. 12-13.
The Examiner finds that the data points and parity points of Servi may
be stored in different locations of the same storage medium. Ans. 3, citing
paragraph 52, which teaches that the storage medium may be a compact
disc, a ROM, a large scale storage system using drives, or any other storage
system. The Examiner also finds that disk sectors were well known at the
time of the invention. Ans. 3.
We agree with the Examiner. When the data points and parity points
of Servi are written to different locations of the same disk storage system,
then the data points and parity points are written to data point disk sectors
and parity disk sectors. We conclude that Servi teaches “writing the n data
information disk sectors with c redundancy information disk sectors on the
same storage unit” as recited in claim 1.
Appellants contend that the Examiner improperly changes the
principle of operation of Servi, because Servi does not teach “a RAID-
configured storage system having a plurality of storage units.” Br. 7-10.
Although the claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim,
if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of
Appeal 2009-013653
Application 10/716,136

5
the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the
purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition
of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not
considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.
Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir.
1999). Here, the body of claim 1 is complete in itself and does not refer to
or otherwise breathe life and meaning into “a RAID-configured storage
system having a plurality of storage units” recited in the preamble.
Accordingly, the preamble is merely a statement of the environment and is
not a claim limitation.
Even if we consider the preamble recitation “a RAID-configured
storage system having a plurality of storage units” as a claim limitation,
Appellants have not provided a definition of “a RAID configured storage
system having a plurality of storage units” that excludes the storage systems
taught by Servi. See e.g., Servi ¶ [0107].
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
have not presented arguments for separate patentability of claims 2-14,
which fall with claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Servi teaches “writing the n
data information disk sectors with c redundancy information disk sectors on
the same storage unit” as recited in claim 1.

Appeal 2009-013653
Application 10/716,136

6
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
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

ELD