ARM Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 30, 2021

2020004191 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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. 15/427,421 02/08/2017 Michael FILIPPO JRL-550-2082 1094 73459 7590 09/30/2021 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER CHAPPELL, DANIEL C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2135 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/30/2021 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL FILIPPO, JAMSHED JALAL, KLAS MAGNUS BRUCE, ALEX JAMES WAUGH, GEOFFRAY LACOURBA, PAUL GILBERT MEYER, BRUCE JAMES MATHEWSON, and PHANINDRA KUMAR MANNAVA Appeal 2020-004191 Application 15/427,421 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC B. CHEN, JAMES B. ARPIN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, 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, 3–18, and 20–25, all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ARM Limited. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-004191 Application 15/427,421 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to data transfer between nodes. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitation in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. Data processing apparatus comprising: a data access requesting node; data access circuitry to receive a data access request from the data access requesting node and to route the data access request for fulfilment by one or more data storage nodes selected from a group of two or more data storage nodes; and indication circuitry to provide a source indication to the data access requesting node, to indicate an attribute identifying which of the data storage nodes fulfilled the data access request; the data access requesting node being configured to vary its operation in response to the source indication. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES2 The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Shiratori US 2014/0195745 A1 July 10, 2014 Akimoto US 2007/0226449 A1 Sept. 27, 2007 Giri US 2016/0034399 A1 Feb. 4, 2016 Smith US 2016/0364145 A1 Dec. 15, 2016 Ledford US 2011/0213925 A1 Sept. 1, 2011 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 8, 16–18, and 22–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shiratori. Final Act. 2–6. 2 Citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2020-004191 Application 15/427,421 3 Claims 3–5 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shiratori and Akimoto. Final Act. 7. Claims 6, 7, and 13–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shiratori and Giri. Final Act. 8–10. Claims 9, 10, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shiratori and Smith. Final Act. 10–11. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shiratori, Smith, and Ledford. Final Act. 11. ISSUE First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Shiratori discloses “data access circuitry . . . to route the data access request for fulfilment by one or more data storage nodes selected from a group of two or more data storage nodes,” as recited in claim 1? Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Shiratori discloses “indication circuitry to provide a source indication to the data access requesting node, to indicate an attribute identifying which of the data storage nodes fulfilled the data access request,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Legal Standard Anticipation is a test of strict identity. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top- U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2002). That is, to meet the strict identity test for anticipation, all elements must be disclosed, in a single reference, in exactly the same way as they are arranged or combined in the claim. Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Appeal 2020-004191 Application 15/427,421 4 First Issue The Examiner rejects claim 1 as anticipated by Shiratori. Final Act. 2–3. Relevant here, the Examiner finds that Shiratori discloses “data access circuitry . . . to route the data access request for fulfilment by one or more data storage nodes selected from a group of two or more data storage nodes.” Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner finds Shiratori’s storage system controller 330 corresponds to the recited “data access circuitry.” Final Act. 2 (citing Shiratori Fig. 3, item 330; ¶ 61). The Examiner finds Shiratori’s storage system controller 330 is used “to route the data access request for fulfillment by one or more data storage nodes selected from a group of 2 or more data storage nodes,” finding that the magnetic tape drives 340 and 342 depicted in Shiratori’s Figure 3 constitute the recited “two or more data storage nodes,” and that the storage system controller routes a write request to one of the magnetic tape drives and determines where to store the block of data within the selected magnetic tape drive. Final Act. 3 (citing Shiratori ¶¶ 61, 66). Appellant argues the Examiner has erred because claim 1 requires that the recited “data access circuitry” specify the storage system where a data write should go. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant asserts that Shiratori discloses that Shiratori’s host system 310 (i.e., the “data access requesting node”) and not the storage system controller 330 (i.e., the “data access circuitry”) performs the selection of the magnetic tape storage device to which the data is written. Appeal Br. 10–15; Reply Br. 3–4. We are not persuaded of error because Appellant’s argument rests on an unduly narrow interpretation of the argued limitation. The argued limitation recites “data access circuitry to receive a data access request from the data access requesting node and to route the data access request for Appeal 2020-004191 Application 15/427,421 5 fulfilment by one or more data storage nodes selected from a group of two or more data storage nodes.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims Appendix). By its express language, the limitation states that the data access circuitry is configured to perform two actions: (1) to receive a data access request, and (2) to route the data access request for fulfillment. The claim specifies that the fulfillment of the data access request must be provided “by one or more data storage nodes selected from a group of two or more data storage nodes.” However, the limitation does not specify that the data access circuitry must perform that selection. It merely indicates that a selection of a data storage node is made. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the argued limitation does not require that the data access circuitry perform the selection of a targeted data storage node as Appellant contends. Whether it is Shiratori’s host system 310 or its storage system controller 330 that selects the target magnetic tape storage device, such a selection is encompassed by the broad scope of the argued limitation. Even if we agreed with Appellant’s unduly narrow interpretation of the argued limitation, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Shiratori to disclose that storage system controller 330 performs the selection of the target tape drive. For example, Shiratori discloses that: [T]he is illustrative embodiments provide mechanisms for the storage system itself to determine the optimal location to write data on the storage medium in accordance with the present conditions, e.g., the position of the reed/right head, of the storage system/device, the amount of data to be written and the additional information specifying other blocks of data associated with the block of data to be written in any desired performance parameters. Appeal 2020-004191 Application 15/427,421 6 Shiratori ¶ 80 (emphasis added). Thus, Shiratori demonstrates that it is the storage system, and not the host system, that determines the “storage system/device” upon which a right command should be executed. Second Issue Claim 1 also recites the limitation “indication circuitry to provide a source indication to the data access requesting node, to indicate an attribute identifying which of the data storage nodes fulfilled the data access request.” Appellant argues that because it is the host system that selects the storage device to use, there is no need for the system controller 330, which the Examiner maps to the recited “indication circuitry,” to provide information, such as the recited “source indication,” to the host system regarding which storage device was used to fulfill the request. Appellant also argues that the information Shiratori returns to the host controller does not disclose “a source indication” because the “the location information comprises the location on the tape where data is found, but it does not include information as to which storage devices 340, 342 is used.” Appeal Br. 15. We disagree. As we noted above, Shiratori discloses that the storage system selects the storage system/device to use in fulfilling the write request. Shiratori ¶ 80. Given that the storage system, and, specifically, storage system controller 330, selects the storage node, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the location information returned by the storage system to the host system would include information identifying the specific location at which the data was written. AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc., 633 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“‘[T]he dispositive question regarding anticipation [is] whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from a [prior art reference]’ that every claim element is disclosed in that Appeal 2020-004191 Application 15/427,421 7 reference.”). Because Shiratori’s storage system may select the ultimate location for storage, it would not make sense for the storage system to provide the host system with only limited information about where the data was ultimately written.3 As such, Appellants arguments are not persuasive of error, and we sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1. Remaining Claims Appellant does not argue separately the patentability of any other claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of those claims for the reasons stated with respect to the independent claims from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–18, and 20– 25. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 8, 16–18, 22–25 102(a)(1) Shiratori 1, 8, 16–18, 22–25 3–5, 20 103 Shiratori, Akimoto 3–5, 20 6, 7, 13–15 103 Shiratori, Giri 6, 7, 13–15 9, 10, 21 103 Shiratori, Smith 9, 10, 21 3 Appellant also argues “[g]iven that Shiratori does not disclose the claimed source indication, Shiratori also fails to disclose host system 310 (mapped to the data access request node) varying its operation in response to such a source indication, as required in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 15. Because Appellant’s argument that Shiratori fails to disclose the recited “source indication” is unpersuasive, this argument is equally unpersuasive. Appeal 2020-004191 Application 15/427,421 8 11, 12 103 Shiratori, Smith, Leford 11, 12 Overall Outcome 1, 3–18, 20–25 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