Ex Parte WANG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2018

14713698 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/713,698 05/15/2015
152569 7590 11/02/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - VMware
24 Greenway Plaza
Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
WenguangWANG
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.
C514 1609
EXAMINER
CHOI, CHARLES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2133
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2018 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):
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
ipadmin@vmware.com
vmware_admin@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WENGUANG WANG and YUNSHAN LU
Appeal 2018-003187
Application 14/713,698
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-
17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to "[E]mbodiments of the present disclosure
provide a modified bitmap scheme that uses an auxiliary tree data structure
to more quickly allocate space. Embodiments include a tree of bitmap
summary pages to manage the free space of a large scale storage system."
Specification, paragraph 8.
Appeal 2018-003187
Application 14/713, 698
Illustrative Claim
1. A method comprising:
receiving an allocation request for a plurality of blocks from a storage
system;
searching a plurality of summary entries for a first summary entry
indicating sufficient contiguous free storage blocks for the allocation
request, wherein each of the summary entries corresponds to a respective
bitmap page comprising a plurality of bits, each of the bits corresponding to
a respective storage block and indicating whether the corresponding storage
block is free, and wherein each of the summary entries comprises (i) a count
of free storage blocks indicated by the corresponding bitmap page and (ii) an
indication of a largest contiguous set of free storage blocks indicated by the
corresponding bitmap page, the indication of the largest contiguous set of
free storage blocks being distinct from the count of the free storage
blocks;
searching a first bitmap page corresponding to the first summary entry
for a first plurality of contiguous free storage blocks for the allocation
request; and
transmitting an indication identifying the first plurality of contiguous
free storage blocks to satisfy the allocation request.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17 and 19-20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Patent Application
Publication 2008/0104357 Al; published May 1, 2008), Casper (US Patent
2
Appeal 2018-003187
Application 14/713, 698
Application Publication 2010/0125583 Al; published May 20, 2010) and
Lowe (US Patent 6,070,172; issued May 30, 2000). Final Action 2-7.
Claims 8 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
unpatentable over Kim, Casper, Lowe and Brent (Efficient implementation
of the first-fit strategy for dynamic storage allocation, July, 1989, ACM
Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)). Final
Action 8.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 25, 2017), the Reply Brief (filed
January 30, 2018), the Answer (mailed December 6, 2017) and the Final
Action (mailed April 12, 2017) for the respective details.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
Appellants contend, "each of claims 1, 9, and 16 recites a plurality of
summary entries, 'wherein each of the summary entries corresponds to a
respective bitmap page comprising a plurality of bits, each of the bits
corresponding to a respective storage block and indicating whether the
corresponding storage block is free."' Appeal Brief 10. Appellants argue that
the combination of Kim, Casper and Lowe does not disclose the claimed
plurality of summary entries. Appeal Brief 8.
The Examiner finds Kim discloses, "searching a plurality of
summary entries for a first summary entry indicating sufficient [ ... J free
storage blocks for the allocation request." Final Action 2 ( citing Kim,
paragraph 48). The Examiner further finds, "Casper's second layer or
branch 230, combined with entries (groups of free blocks in a particular
3
Appeal 2018-003187
Application 14/713, 698
storage area) of the free block list from Kim teaches the summary entry.
Casper's bitmap in the lower layer 210 teaches the bitmap pages that
correspond to each summary entry." Final Action 3. The Examiner states,
"Lowe is relied upon to teach finding the largest contiguous free blocks in a
file system state/mapping (which also indicates whether a block is free or
not) in a storage medium." Answer 4. The Examiner determines:
Lowe's teaching of finding the largest contiguous free blocks in
a storage medium, is applied to Kim's teaching of plurality of
summary entries, where each entries includes indication of
number of free blocks available to be allocated, and Casper's
teaching of entries having corresponding bitmap page where a
hierarchical storage scheme is used so bitmaps or tables can be
quickly searched. Accordingly, the combination of Kim, Casper
and Lowe teaches the claimed "summary entries comprises ... an
indication of a largest contiguous set of free storage blocks
indicated by the corresponding bitmap page, the indication of the
largest contiguous set of free storage blocks being distinct from
the count of the free storage blocks."
Answer 5.
Appellants argue:
Lowe does not disclose anything regarding summary entries for
bitmap pages that are separate from the bitmap pages, nor does
Lowe disclose that the summary entry specifically comprises an
indication of a largest contiguous set of free storage blocks
indicated by the corresponding bitmap page. There is no
disclosure in Lowe of any specific indicator/indication in a
summary entry of the largest contiguous set of free storage
blocks in a bitmap page.
Appeal Brief 10-11.
We agree with Appellants, Lowe does not disclose anything regarding
summary entries for bitmap pages however the Examiner did not rely upon
Lowe to disclose anything regarding summary entries for bitmap pages. See
Answer 4--5; Final Action 4; see also Appeal Brief 10-11. Appellants
4
Appeal 2018-003187
Application 14/713, 698
contend, "However, Appellants disagree that Lowe even teaches a numerical
count of largest contiguous free blocks in a file system as it just states that a
file system has contiguous free blocks, not storage of any numerical count."
Appeal Brief 11. Lowe discloses:
[C]ontiguous blocks are highly valued in a file system, because
performance is optimized if a file is stored in contiguous blocks.
In the example, file B stored in file system IA comprises five
contiguous blocks, located at blocks 6-10. The largest
contiguous free space in file system IA is two blocks, one of
which is found at blocks 4-5. On the other hand, the largest
contiguous free space in file system 1 G is five blocks, located at
blocks 11-15. In order to store a file in contiguous blocks, a
sufficient number of contiguous free blocks in the free space
must be found.
Lowe, column 1, lines 35--44 ( emphasis added).
Accordingly, we do not find Appellants arguments persuasive because
it is evident that Lowe is concerned with identifying the largest contiguous
free blocks in order to optimize performance in a file system. Appellants
further argues:
Even if for sake of argument Kim teaches summary entries, and
Casper teaches bitmap pages where a hierarchical storage
scheme is used, and Lowe teaches the idea of finding the largest
contiguous free blocks in a storage medium, the combination
does not teach an "indication of a largest contiguous set of free
storage blocks indicated by the corresponding bitmap page" in a
summary entry corresponding to the bitmap page.
Reply Brief 3.
Appellants contends:
Rather the combination [ of Kim, Casper and Lowe] at best would
teach a summary entry not including an "indication of a largest
contiguous set of free storage blocks indicated by the
corresponding bitmap page" along with bitmap pages where a
hierarchical storage scheme is used, and where at times the
largest contiguous free blocks in a storage medium are found.
5
Appeal 2018-003187
Application 14/713, 698
Reply Brief 3.
We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. Casper discloses,
"One embodiment is a method that uses a hierarchical bitmap tree in a
storage system to store where available and unavailable memory space
exists. Bitmap blocks are retrieved from the hierarchical bitmap tree to
locate the available memory." Casper, Abstract. Appellants' Specification
discloses, "[E]mbodiments of the present disclosure provide a modified
bitmap scheme that uses an auxiliary tree data structure to more quickly
allocate space." Specification, paragraph 8. "As our precedents make clear,
however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ." KSR Int'! v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007).
Further, the Examiner supports the motivations to combine the references
with articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int'! v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418
(2007), see also Final Action 3--4. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner
obviousness rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17 and 19-20,
argued together. See Appeal Brief 11. We also sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 15, argued separately but without
distinction. See Appeal Brief 11-12.
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-3, 5-10,
12-17, 19 and 20 are affirmed.
6
Appeal 2018-003187
Application 14/713, 698
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 ). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(v).
AFFIRMED
7