Ex Parte Sicola

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 18, 2010

11477967 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 18, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/477,967 06/29/2006 Stephen J. Sicola STL13241 5241
7590 10/18/2010
Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens
Suite 1700
100 North Broadway
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820
EXAMINER
CHOE, YONG J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN J. SICOLA
____________

Appeal 2010-0054571
Application 11/477,967
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 Filed on June 29, 2006. The real party in interest is Seagate Technology
LLC. (App. Br. 1.)
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-005457
Application 11/477,967

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-4, 6-14, 18-20. Claims 5, 15, and 17 have been
canceled. (App. Br. 2.)3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant invented a method and apparatus for allowing a re-stripe
module (199) to encode a first group of logical units (LUN 1..n) retrieved
from a cache (168) into a single data stream (202), which is decoded as
another group of LUNs (LUN 1..m) that are subsequently stored in another
storage device (109.) ( See generally Spec. 12, ll. 3-14, Fig. 13.)
Claims 1 and 20 further illustrate Appellant’s invention as follows:
1. A data storage device comprising a software system
resident in a memory space configured to encode data retrieved
from a first number of logical units into a single channel in
order to store the data in a second number of logical units
different than the first number of logical units.

20. A data storage system comprising:

an intelligent storage element having a memory space;
and
means for restriping data in a first logical unit
configuration in the memory space into a second logical unit
configuration that is different than the first logical unit
configuration.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:

3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed August 10,
2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 30, 2009; and (3) the
Reply Brief filed December 30, 2009.
Appeal 2010-005457
Application 11/477,967

3

Williamson 2003/0192005 A1 Oct. 9, 2003
Ito 2004/0133743 A1 Jul. 8, 2004
Chikusa 2006/0047908 A1 Mar. 2, 2006
DeCenzo 2006/0268444 A1 Nov. 30, 2006

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1, 6, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Chikusa.
2. Claims 2-4, 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Chikusa and Williamson.
3. Claims 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Chikusa and DeCenzo.
4. Claims 8-11, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chikusa,
Williamson, and Ito.
5. Claims 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Chikusa, Williamson and DeCenzo.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues that Chikusa does not disclose a first number of
logical units different than a second number of logical units, as recited in
independent claim 1. (App. Br. 6-9, Reply Br. 1-5.) More particularly,
Appellant argues that Chikusa’s data sequences and drives are not logical
units numbers since they do not comport with the ordinary meaning of
Appeal 2010-005457
Application 11/477,967

4
logical units (i.e. “an abstraction of an associated physical storage space
used in mapping some or all of the physical storage capacity.”) Id.
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Chikusa’s
disclosure of using the single link to integrate multiple data sequences into a
single data stream before it is transferred to an expander, which in turn
converts the single data stream into the original data sequences that are
forwarded to a plurality of hard drives, teaches the disputed limitations.
(Ans. 4 and 10.)

The pivotal issue before us, then, is as follows:

ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Chikusa
teaches a first number of logical units different than a second number of
logical units, as recited in independent claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Logical Unit Number (LUN) refers to an identification scheme for
storage disks that typically supports a small number of units addressed as
LUN 0 through 7, 15 or 31 depending on the technology. A LUN may refer
to a single disk, a subset of a single disk or an array of disks. Derived from
Appeal 2010-005457
Application 11/477,967

5
the SCSI bus technology, each SCSI ID address can be further subdivided
into LUNs 0 through 15 for disk arrays and libraries. 4
2. LUNs are used to identify SCSI devices, such as external hard drives,
connected to a computer. Each device is assigned a LUN, from 0 to 7, which
serves as the device's unique address. LUNs can also be used for identifying
virtual hard disk partitions, which are used in RAID configurations. For
example, a single hard drive may be partitioned into multiple volumes. Each
volume can then be assigned a unique LUN.5
3. Appellant’s Specification describes a cache (168) partitioned as a
first number of LUNs (1..n), each transmitted via a separate path (200) to a
multiplexer (206) that encodes the data, and subsequently transfers it via a
single channel (202) to a de-multiplexer (208), which decodes the encoded
data to re-stripe it into a second number of LUNs (1..m) that are stored in
another storage device (109). (Spec. 12-13; Fig. 13.)
4. Chikusa discloses a controller (10) having a cache memory containing
two data sequences A (A0..An) and B (B0..Bn) that are multiplexed and
encoded as a single data stream (A0 B0 A1 B1) before it is transmitted to an
expander (20) via a single physical link channel (40). ([¶¶ 117-0118].)
5. Chikusa further discloses that upon receiving the encoded data stream,
the expander (20) performs another multiplex operation to decode the data
stream into the two original data sequences before transferring them to two
separate storage devices (30a, 30b) via separate physical link channels. (Id.)

4 http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/LUN, visited on September 14,
2010.
5 http://www.techterms.com/definition/lun, visited on September 14, 2010.
Appeal 2010-005457
Application 11/477,967

6
6. Chikusa discloses additional embodiments wherein the expander
transfers the original data sequences to three or more storage devices.
(Figures 16A, 21A.)

ANALYSIS
Anticipation
Claims 1 and 6
Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent
part, a first number of logical units different than a second number of logical
units. Appellant and the Examiner mainly disagree upon whether Chikusa
teaches the cited limitations. We give the claims their broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification and as understood by an ordinarily
skilled artisan. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted). See also Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal
citations omitted). Our review of Appellant’s Specification indicates that
the first number of LUNs is n whereas the second number of LUNs is m, and
that n is different than m. (See FF 3) Moreover, we find that a LUN
ordinarily means to an ordinarily skilled artisan an address in a storage disk
designating a single disk, a subset of a single disk or an array of disks. (See
FF 1 and 2).6 We therefore construe the disputed limitations above broadly

6 We decline to adopt Appellant’s proffered definition of a LUN as an
“abstraction of an associated physical storage space used in mapping some
or all of the physical storage capacity” since Appellant has not provided any
authority to support that definition. Further, we find that such definition is
not the broadest reasonable interpretation. Cf Figure 15 of Chikusa.
Appeal 2010-005457
Application 11/477,967

7
but reasonably as a first number of disk partitions being unequal to a second
number of disk partitions.
Chikusa discloses encoding two data sequences retrieved from a cache
into a single data stream, which is transferred to an expander via a single
physical link channel. (See FF 4) The expander, in turn, converts the single
data stream into the two original data sequences that are stored in two
storage devices. (FF. 5) To the extent that the two data sequences can be
viewed as two partitions of the cache, we agree with the Examiner that they
do qualify as LUNs consistent with our claim construction above. Similarly,
the two storage disks in Chikusa qualify as LUNs to the extent that they are
considered as being parts of a larger storage disk. We note, however, that
even in light of such a loose interpretation of Chikusa’s teachings, the
number of LUNs (m) associated with the data sequences is not different than
the number of LUNs (m) associated with the storage devices since under the
current embodiment they would each have two LUNs. The Examiner’s
attempt to rely upon teachings disclosed in additional embodiments of
Chikusa that allow use of three or more storage devices (FF. 6) is improper
since an anticipation rejection can only be premised on a single embodiment
at a time. Furthermore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed
to show that any of the two data sequences can seamlessly be used in
conjunction with the three or more storage devices disclosed in those
alternative embodiments. Since Appellant has shown at least one error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we need not address Appellant’s other
arguments. It therefore follows that Appellant has shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appeal 2010-005457
Application 11/477,967

8
Dependent claim 6 also recites the limitations of claim 1 discussed
above. Therefore, Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 6 for the same reasons outlined above.
Claim 20
We find no error in the Examiner’s rejection independent claim 20
which recites, inter alia, a second logical unit configuration that is different
than a first logical unit configuration. In particular, we find Chikusa’s
disclosure of storing into two hard drives the two data sequences retrieved
from a cache teaches the disputed limitations. As discussed above, to the
extent that the two hard drives are parts of a larger hard drive, they amount
to a second logical unit configuration, which is different than the first logical
unit configuration formed by the two data sequences stored in the cache. It
follows that Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 20.
Claims 2-4, 7-14, 16, 18-19
Obviousness
Regarding claims 2-4, 7-14, 16, 18, and 19, Appellant argues that
neither Williamson, nor DeCenzo, nor Ito cures the noted deficiencies of
Chikusa. (App. Br. 10-16.) We agree. It follows that Appellant has shown
error in the Examiner’s rejection of those claims 6 for the same reasons
outlined in our discussion of claim 1 above.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20.
However, Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-4, 6-14, 16, 18-20.
Appeal 2010-005457
Application 11/477,967

9
ORDER
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 20. However, we
reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6-14, 16, 18, and 19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Vsh

FELLERS, SNIDER, BLANKENSHIP,
BAILEY & TIPPENS
SUITE 1700
100 NORTH BROADWAY
OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73102-8820