Ex Parte RussoDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 201613062787 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/062,787 03/08/2011 22879 7590 06/01/2016 HP Inc, 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Leonard Russo 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 82651018 7552 EXAMINER SAIN, GAUTAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2135 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEONARD RUSSO Appeal2015-001356 Application 13/062, 787 1 Technology Center 2100 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and AMBER L. HAGY Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-15, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant indicates the Real Party in Interest is the Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2015-001356 Application 13/062,787 Invention The claims are directed to a method and apparatus to manage non- volatile (NV) memory as cache on a hard drive disk for data storage. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method to use a hard disk drive for data storage, comprising: receiving commands from an operating system on a computer; storing, in non-volatile (NV) memory of the hard disk drive, at least a portion of the data corresponding to a file in use by the computer; tracking, on the hard disk drive, which part of the data stored in the NV memory has been modified by the operating system on the computer; and flushing, in response to a command received from the operating system on the computer; the data in the NV memory to commit the modified data to rotating hard disk media, wherein the command to flush data is compatible in syntax with a flush data command for a hard disk drive without NV memory to commit data in dynamic random access memory to rotating media. Applied Prior Art The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Anderson De Whitt Ergan US 6,295,577 B 1 US 7 ,082,495 B2 US 7,644,239 B2 2 Sept. 25, 2001 Jul. 25, 2006 Jan. 5,2010 Appeal 2015-001356 Application 13/062,787 Rejections Claims 5, 7-10, 11, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over De Whitt and Anderson. Claims 1--4, 6, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over De Whitt, Ergan, and Anderson. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of record in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own, ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows. Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims because the De Whitt, Anderson, and Ergan, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest "wherein the command to flush data is compatible in syntax with a flush data command for a hard disk drive without NV memory to commit data in dynamic random access memory to rotating media" as recited by independent claim 1, and similarly recited by independent claims 5 and 11. App. Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 2--4. Appellant argues Anderson does not cure the deficiencies of De Whitt and Ergan because Anderson merely describes two different embodiments of writing data from memory to disc, where one embodiment includes data being written directly from memory to disc and 3 Appeal 2015-001356 Application 13/062,787 the other embodiment includes data being written from a volatile cache to a non-volatile cache, and from the non-volatile cache to the disc. App. Br. 8, 11; Reply Br. 3, 4. We disagree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Anderson teaches: the command to flush data is compatible in syntax with a flush data command for a hard disk drive without a NV memory to commit data in dynamic random access memory to rotating media (e.g., procedure for writing data onto disc 102 (when not in power down mode), control for removing data from volatile memory cache 124 (step 214) and written onto disc 102 surface 104 (step 216), Figs, 1, 3; col 4, lines 8-20; where DRAM is used for volatile memory, col 2, lines 9-1 O; in addition, Anderson also discloses writing data from volatile cache 124 into non-volatile cache 126 and then data from cache 126 is written into disc 104, col 4, lines 35-52, Figs 4, 5. Final Act. 3, 4; see also Ans. 14 Appellants argue Anderson fails to show or suggest that the command used to perform the method sho\x1n in Fig. 3 is compatible in syntax to the command used to perform the methods show in Figs. 4 and 5. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. The Examiner finds, however, and we agree: [ c ]ompatibility of the commands is taught because Anderson's procedure in the cache circuitry 123 works to do both, (1) write and remove data from volatile 124 to disc 204 (without an intervening NV memory) and (2) write and remove data from volatile 124 to non-volatile 126 to disc 104. Thus, establishing that it would have been obvious that instructions/commands from caching circuitry 123 are compatible with flushing both from cache 124 to disc 104 and from cache 126 to disc 104. Ans. 15. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the 4 Appeal 2015-001356 Application 13/062,787 Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art teaches or suggests "wherein the command to flush data is compatible in syntax with a flush data command for a hard disk drive without NV memory to commit data in dynamic random access memory to rotating media," as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 5 and 11. Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive arguments with respect to claims 2--4, 6-10, and 12-15. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation