Ex Parte Sengupta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 27, 2018

13531455 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/531,455 06/22/2012
39254 7590 08/29/2018
Barta, Jones & Foley, P.C.
(Patent Group - Microsoft Corporation)
2805 Dallas Parkway
Suite 222
Plano, TX 75093
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sudipta Sengupta
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.
334581.01 6257
EXAMINER
AHMED, ZUBAIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2132
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2018 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
uspto@dockettrak.com
docket@bjfip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUDIPTA SENGUPTA, JIN LI, CHENG HUANG,
TIMOTHY ANDREW PRITCHETT, and
CHRISTOPHER BRODER WILSON
Appeal2018-002020
Application 13/531,455
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-002020
Application 13/531,455
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-18, 21, and 22. Claims 19 and 20 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a multi-tiered cache with storage medium
awareness. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for writing objects to a multi-tiered cache that
includes a volatile cache tier and a non-volatile cache tier
comprising a solid-state device, the method comprising:
determining a scoring threshold that objects cached in the
volatile cache tier are to exceed to be identified as hot objects,
wherein the scoring threshold includes a minimum hit count for
the objects;
determining an eviction threshold score that hot objects
cached in the volatile cache tier are to exceed to remain in the
volatile cache tier when a capacity of the volatile cache tier has
reached a maximum threshold;
determining the capacity of the volatile cache tier has
reached a maximum threshold;
identifying a hot object cached in the volatile cache tier
that does not exceed the eviction threshold score;
upon identifying the hot object that does not exceed the
eviction threshold score, evicting the identified hot object from
the volatile cache tier; and
1 Appellants indicate that Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC is the real
party in interest. (App. Br. 1 ).
2
Appeal2018-002020
Application 13/531,455
copying the evicted hot object to the non-volatile cache
tier.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Morris et al.
Hervas
Nishimoto et al.
Kelly et al.
Maheshwari et al.
Benhase et al.
Cote et al.
US 2007 /0067575 Al
US 7,734,875 Bl
US 2010/0235569 Al
US 2012/0158815 Al
US 2012/0017034 Al
US 2013/0205088 Al
US 8,533,393 Bl
REJECTIONS
Mar. 22, 2007
June 8, 2010
Sept. 16, 2010
June 21, 2012
Jan. 19,2012
Aug. 8, 2013
Sept. 10, 2013
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 16-18, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Benhase in view of Morris and in
further view of Cote.
Claims 2, 5-9, and 22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Benhase, Morris, Cote, and in further
view of Hervas.
Claims 3 and 13-15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Benhase, Morris, Cote, and in further view of
Nishimoto.
Claim 4 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Benhase, Morris, Cote, Hervas, and in further view of
Nishimoto.
3
Appeal2018-002020
Application 13/531,455
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Benhase, Morris, Cote, Hervas, and in further view
of Kelly.
Claim 12 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Benhase, Morris, Cote, Hervas, Kelly, and in further view
of Maheshwari.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-18, 21, and 22 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellants' assertions regarding Examiner error.
We adopt the Examiner's findings and reasoning in the Final Office Action
(Final Act. 2-21) and Answer (Ans. 3-15). We add the following to address
and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
With regards to the rejection of Claims 1, 16-18, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, Appellants contend that "one or more of the references cannot
be combined as suggested and [the] combination ofBenhase, Morris, and
Cote would not produce the claimed invention at least because [in] the
suggested combination one or more claim features are absent from the
combined references." (App. Br. 10). Specifically, Appellants contend:
Morris describes that the comparison in one form tests whether
or not the temperature value of a data object is greater than or
equal to a threshold value. In this situation, the threshold value
could be "HOT" and all data objects having a temperature value
of either HOT-PACING or HOT would be cached, whereas those
data objects having a temperature value less than the threshold
value, namely WARM or COOL, would not be cached. See
Morris, paragraph [0049]. That is, Morris merely describes that
4
Appeal2018-002020
Application 13/531,455
an object may be ranked as hot-pacing, hot, warm, or cool, and
that objects that are either hot-pacing or hot are cached. Thus, at
best, Morris describes identifying an object as a hot object and
caching all of the identified hot objects. In contrast, independent
Claim 1 provides that an eviction threshold score is applied to
objects already identified as hot objects, and determining if these
already identified hot objects exceed the eviction threshold score.
Thus, unlike Morris which merely describes that all hot objects
(hot-pacing or hot) are cached, independent Claim 1 compares
objects that are already defined as hot objects to an eviction
threshold score to determine if these hot objects are to be evicted
or if the hot objects are staying in the cache. Therefore, Claim 1
enables hot objects to be evicted from a cache and enables hot
objects to be maintained in the cache based on the eviction
threshold score.
(App. Br. 10-11).
The Examiner finds that in the combination of Benhase, Morris, and
Cote, the Examiner specifically relies upon Morris to determine an eviction
and threshold score and that
[i]t is evident that a person having ordinary skill, in view of
Morris as described above, would recognize that the threshold
value may be set to HOT and data objects that have the
temperature HOT-PACING would be stored in the cache while
HOT data objects would be evicted from the cache which is
commensurate with ... independent claim 1.
(Ans. 5---6).
"The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference[.] ... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
5
Appeal2018-002020
Application 13/531,455
1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the
references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under
review."); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the
teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific
structures."). Rather, "if a technique has been used to improve one device,
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). When considering the obviousness
of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether
the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements
according to their established functions." Id.
We find Appellants' arguments to be based upon a bodily
incorporation of each of the references. Appellants emphasize the bodily
incorporation of the Morris reference which the Examiner relies upon for the
eviction of data from a cache, but a majority of Appellants' argument is a
discussion with respect to the initial caching of data. (App. Br. 10-
11 ). Additionally, we find Appellants' argument regarding the two "factors"
rests on too narrow an interpretation of the Morris reference. (App. Br. 12).
Additionally, the Examiner further explains the line of reasoning in the
combination and how the teachings of the Cote and Morris references would
work together. (Ans. 9--11). We agree with the Examiner's application of
the prior art to the claimed invention and find Appellants' arguments to be
unpersuasive of error therein.
We disagree with Appellants' overly narrow interpretation of the
teachings and suggestions of the Morris reference. We agree with the
6
Appeal2018-002020
Application 13/531,455
Examiner that in the combination of the teachings of the Benhase, Morris,
and Cote references would have taught and fairly suggested the claimed
method.
As a result, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
representative independent claim 1. Appellants do not set forth separate
arguments for patentability of independent claims 16 and 21 and dependent
claims 17 and 18. (App. Br. 12). Therefore, we group these claims as
falling with representative independent claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 2-15, 19, and 22, Appellants do not
set forth separate arguments for patentability and rely upon the arguments
advanced with respect to representative independent claim 1. (App. Br. 13-
15). Therefore, we sustain the rejections of the dependent claims for the
same reasons discussed above with respect to representative independent
claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting representative independent
claim 1 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and claims 2-18, 21,
and 22 not separately argued.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejections of claims 1-18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
7
Appeal2018-002020
Application 13/531,455
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
8