Pure Storage, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 13, 20212020000672 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/966,024 04/30/2018 RONALD KARR 3332US01 9828 130608 7590 05/13/2021 Pure Storage, Inc. c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP 797 Sam Bass Road #2559 ROUND ROCK, TX 78681 EXAMINER CARDWELL, ERIC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2139 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2021 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 RONALD KARR, CONSTANTINE SAPUNTZAKIS, and JOHN COLGROVE Appeal 2020-000672 Application 15/966,024 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Pure Storage. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-000672 Application 15/966,024 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method of staging data within a unified storage element of a secondary storage system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of staging data, the method comprising: receiving, in a storage system at a storage element integrating fast durable storage and bulk durable storage, a data storage operation from a host computer; storing data corresponding to the data storage operation within fast durable storage in accordance with a first data resiliency technique; and responsive to detecting a condition for transferring data between fast durable storage and bulk durable storage, transferring the data from fast durable storage to bulk durable storage in accordance with a second data resiliency technique. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Siewert et al. US 2010/0199036 A1 Aug. 5, 2010 Cho US 2011/0307652 A1 Dec. 15, 2011 Omizo et al. US 2013/0198437 A1 Aug. 1, 2013 Verma et al. US 2016/0080490 A1 Mar. 17, 2016 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4–11, 13–16, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Omizo and Verma. Final Act. 3. Claims 2, 3, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Omizo, Verma, and Siewert. Final Act. 9. Appeal 2020-000672 Application 15/966,024 3 Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Omizo, Verma, and Cho. Final Act. 10. OPINION Claims 1, 4–11, 13–16, and 18–20 With respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 16, Appellant does not present separate arguments for patentability of the claims. Appeal Br. 6. Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim and will address Appellant’s arguments thereto. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Therefore, claims 4–11, 13–16, and 18–20 will stand or fall with representative independent claim 1. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant argues that the Omizo reference actually teaches a device that operates as main memory for a processor rather than a storage system. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant further argues that the two types of systems, memory and storage, are vastly different even while having some similarities because the two systems are so different that, in conventional computer systems, the two systems operate with different communication protocols, contain different types of hardware, are accessed and treated differently by operating systems and applications. Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant also argues that a person of skill in the art will immediately recognize that main memory and storage systems are distinct. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that Omizo's entire disclosure is concerned with main memory, not a storage system where the claims are directed to a “storage” system and “storage” elements within that system. Appeal Br. 7. Appeal 2020-000672 Application 15/966,024 4 Appellant’s Reply Brief sets forth the same arguments as set forth in the Appeal Brief and responds to the Examiner’s finding that memory and storage are “synonymous.” Reply Br. 8–9; see Ans. 3. Appellant generally contends that equating memory and storage is incorrect because “storage” generally refers to a thing that holds data for a longer term than “memory.” Reply Br. 8. Appellant also generally contends that “memory is generally volatile - losing the held data after a loss of power - while storage retains the held data.” Reply Br. 8. The Examiner finds that the Omizo reference teaches two types of memory in a storage system, including volatile (fast durable storage) and non-volatile (bulk durable storage) memory devices. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner additionally identifies portions of Appellant’s Specification which uses the terms storage and memory interchangeably. Ans. 4. Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s references to Appellant’s Specification in the Reply Brief. Reply Br. 8–9. Appellant further contends that the Omizo reference indicates that main memory is volatile and the present application sets forth that storage systems comprise non-volatile storage. Reply Br. 9. We find that Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the language of independent claim 1 where volatile and non-volatile are not expressly recited in the language of the claim. Moreover, Appellant’s arguments to “secondary” storage is also not commensurate in scope with the language of the claims.2 Arguments must be commensurate in scope with the actual 2 Additionally, we note that the Verma reference discloses both computer memory and computer storage systems (SANs, RAIDs) along with data migration between a first and a second storage systems. Verma ¶ 30. The Verma reference further discloses migration of data from different portions Appeal 2020-000672 Application 15/966,024 5 claim language. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982); see In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts . . . are not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.”). For the reasons discussed above, and on this record, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness regarding the invention recited in representative independent claim 1. Claims 2, 3, 12, and 17 Appellant argues that the Siewert and Cho references do not cure the deficiencies in combination of the Omizo and Verma references. Appeal Br. 8. As a result, Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for patentability of these claims and relies upon the arguments made with respect to representative independent claim 1. Because we found no error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 1, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3, 12, and 17 for the same reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is AFFIRMED. of storage disks to the outer edge of the hard drive which spins faster for quicker reads and writes. Verma ¶¶ 47–49. The Verma reference also discloses various types of non-volatile storage. Verma ¶ 51. Appeal 2020-000672 Application 15/966,024 6 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4–11, 13– 16, 18–20 103 Omizo, Verma 1, 4–11, 13– 16, 18–20 2, 3, 17 103 Omizo, Verma, Siewert 2, 3, 17 12 103 Omizo, Verma, Cho 12 Overall Outcome 1–20 TIME PERIOD FOR 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation