Pure Storage, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 10, 2021

2019005382 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2021)

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.
15/253,934 09/01/2016 JOHN COLGROVE 3118US02 9193
130608 7590 02/10/2021
Pure Storage, Inc.
c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP
301 Congress Avenue
Suite 1350
Austin, TX 78701
EXAMINER
CYGIEL, GARY W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2137
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2021 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
kate@klspatents.com
office@klspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN COLGROVE, LYDIA DO, and
ETHAN MILLER
Appeal 2019-005382
Application 15/253,934
Technology Center 2100

Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 17, and 18. See Final Act.
1. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11–16, and 20 are withdrawn; claims 4 and 19 are

1 We refer to the Specification, filed September 1, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final
Office Action, mailed March 19, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed
May 1, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 30, 2019
(“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed July 8, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Pure Storage, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005382
Application 15/253,934
2
canceled. Appeal Br. 14–19 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to migrating data in a storage array that includes a
plurality of storage devices. Spec. Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with
bracketed matter added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of migrating data in a storage array that includes a
plurality of storage devices, the method comprising:
[(a)] identifying and designating for removal from the storage
array, one or more storage devices; and
[(b)] responsive to designating one or more storage devices for
removal from the storage array and before the one or more
storage devices are removed:
[(b.1)] identifying, by the storage array and in dependence
upon one or more selection rules, one or more target
storage devices for receiving data stored on the
designated one or more storage devices; and
[(b.2)] migrating, by the storage array, data from the
designated one or more storage devices to the one or
more target storage devices including reading data
stored on the designated one or more storage devices
and writing the data to the one or more target storage
devices.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Ohno US 2010/0325345 A1 Dec. 23, 2010

Appeal 2019-005382
Application 15/253,934
3
REJECTION
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohno. Final Act. 2–6.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
OPINION
We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
To the extent consistent with our analysis herein, we adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Examiner’s Findings and Appellant’s Contentions of Error
The Examiner finds Ohno’s method for managing a storage system
using flash memory devices (FMDs) that responds to a device blockage by
writing information contained in a blocked FMD to an alternative FMD
discloses the subject matter recited by the claims on appeal. Final Act. 2–3
(citing Ohno ¶¶ 267, 272, 281–292).
Appellant contends the rejection is improper because (i) “Ohno
discusses blockage due to component removal but not blockage due to a
designation for removal before the device is removed” (Appeal Br. 8) and
Appeal 2019-005382
Application 15/253,934
4
(ii) although Ohno “describes a process for searching for an alternative FMD
. . . [it] does not describe that this search for an alternative FMD is in
response to designating one or more storage devices for removal from the
storage array and before the one or more storage devices are removed” (id.
at 11). Appellant further argues Ohno’s blockage identification is of devices
already removed, arguing the reference does not “describe the specific
situation in which a storage device has been indicated as designated for
removal and not yet been removed” as required by claim 1. Id. at 9.
The Examiner responds, addressing Appellant’s contentions that Ohno
fails to describe performing step b.1 and b.2 responsive to (i) designating
one or more storage devices for removal from the storage array and
(ii) before the one or more storage devices are removed. Ans. 3. “As an
initial point, the [E]xaminer notes that there are no limitations describing the
physical removal of storage devices.” Id. The Examiner directs attention to
paragraph 46 of Appellant’s Specification for disclosing the designation of
properly functioning storage devices for removal. Id. at 3–4. The Examiner
concludes, “[s]ince the claims, read in light of the specification, include
designating properly functioning storage devices for removal it is entirely
reasonable, absent an explicit limitation describing the removal, that the
claimed system continues operating with devices that have only been
designated for removal, but not actually removed.” Id. at 4.
The Examiner further disputes Appellant’s contention that Ohno is
concerned with blockages related to device that have already been removed
or failed, arguing there is insufficient evidence to support Appellant’s
allegation. Id. To the contrary, according to the Examiner, “[i]t seems
exceptionally clear that read and write processing cannot occur on a device
that has been absolutely removed from the system and, therefore, the
Appeal 2019-005382
Application 15/253,934
5
[A]ppellant’s argument that the migration step of Ohno occurs after the
device has been removed is not persuasive.” Id. at 5.
Addressing Appellant’s argument that Ohno’s identification of a
blocked device fails to disclose designation of a device for removal, the
Examiner responds, “[i]n the context of Ohno, and absent explicit or implicit
claim elements directed to a removal mechanism, designating a device as
blocked is considered analogous to the claimed designation for removal.”
Id. The Examiner further takes the position that:
[A]bsent a specific mechanism for removal, a removal can be
mapped to a variety of events relating to one of a physical,
logical, temporary and/or permanent removal. In any case, the
very fact that actions are performed on the storage device is
considered evidence that, at least in one context, the disputed
actions are performed on a present (i.e., not yet removed) device.
Id. at 6.
Appellant “agree[s] that Ohno’s description of migration (paragraph
292) does not occur on a device that has already been removed from the
system.” Reply Br. 12. However, Appellant maintains that the Examiner is
incorrect in “arguing that a FMD that is blocked due to a shortage of surplus
capacity may be characterized as designated for removal.” Id. at 13.
According to Appellant:
[T]he cited portions of Ohno do not explicitly state that a device
that has a shortage of surplus capacity is “designated for
removal”. Without explicitly stating that a device with a
shortage of surplus capacity will be removed, Ohno cannot
disclose that a device with a shortage of surplus capacity is
“designated for removal”.
Id.
Appeal 2019-005382
Application 15/253,934
6
Analysis
Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner
error. Appellant fails to explain why the Examiner errs in interpreting the
argued removal as including actions other than physical device removal,
e.g., logical and temporary removal. See Ans. 6. Nor do we find any
definition in the Specification that would limit removal to physical removal
or some other action that is not disclosed by Ohno in haec verba. Instead,
under a broad but reasonable interpretation, we determine that Ohno’s
disclosure of identifying an FMD blockage so that “data may be read from
the blocked FMD” and copied to an alternative FMD wherein “configuration
control program 4030 registers the alternative FMD anew . . . and removes
the blocked FMD” (Ohno ¶¶ 281, 291–292 (emphasis added)) discloses the
argued “designating one or more storage devices for removal from the
storage array and before the one or more storage devices are removed” and,
responsive to such designation, performing steps b.1 and b.2 before the
designated devices are removed.
For the reasons discussed above, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s
contentions of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohno together with the rejection of
independent claims 8 and 18, which are argued together with claim 1, and
the rejection of dependent claims 7, 10, and 17, which are not argued
separately with particularity.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 17, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohno.
Appeal 2019-005382
Application 15/253,934
7

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 7, 8, 10,
17, 18
102(a)(1) Ohno 1, 7, 8, 10,
17, 18

RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED