EMC IP Holding Company LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 25, 2022

2020005354 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2022)

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. 15/523,062 04/28/2017 Nickolay Alexandrovich Dalmatov 1003-429.001 3342 47653 7590 01/25/2022 BAINWOOD HUANG AND ASSOCIATES LLC 2 CONNECTOR ROAD WESTBOROUGH, MA 01581 EXAMINER AHMED, ZUBAIR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2132 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2022 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NICKOLAY ALEXANDROVICH DALMATOV Appeal 2020-005354 Application 15/523,062 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, 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 1-22. Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as EMC IP Holding Company, LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-005354 Application 15/523,062 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to arranging solid state drive (SSD) resources based on estimated endurance. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations italicized: 1. A method of managing SSDs (Solid State Drives) in a data storage system, the method comprising: generating an endurance value for each of multiple SSDs in a RAID (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) group, each endurance value for an SSD indicating an estimated number of write operations that may be performed on the SSD before the SSD wears out and requires replacement; in response to detecting that a first SSD in the RAID group has an endurance value that differs from that of a set of other SSDs in the RAID group, modifying the RAID group by (i) replacing the first SSD with a second SSD not previously part of the RAID group, based at least in part on determining that the second SSD has an endurance value that matches that of the set of other SSDs more closely than that of the first SSD, and (ii) populating the second SSD with contents of the first SSD to enable the RAID group to operate with the second SSD in place of the first SSD; and after modifying the RAID group, varying a minimum time delay enforced between consecutive write operations to the RAID group to operate the RAID group at one of a faster rate of speed and a slower rate of speed, depending upon whether the second SSD has a higher or lower endurance value, respectively, than does the first SSD. Appeal 2020-005354 Application 15/523,062 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Ono US 9,619,181 B2 Apr. 11, 2017 Koishi US 2017/0262231 A1 Sept. 14 2017 Yu US 2015/0106556 A1 Apr. 16, 2015 Kankani US 9,639,282 B2 May 2, 2017 Fang US 2017/0147237 A1 May 25, 2017 Nitta US 2017/0180599 A1 June 22, 2017 Schmier US 9,183,137 B2 Nov. 10, 2015 Kanno US 2017/0024276 A1 Jan. 26, 2017 Nakamura US 2018/0067687 A1 Mar. 8, 2018 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ono and Koishi. Claims 2, 3, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ono, Koishi, and Yu. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ono, Koishi, Yu, and Kankani. Claims 6-10, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ono, Koishi, Yu, Fang. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ono, Koishi, and Nitta. Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ono, Koishi, Yu, Fang, and Schmier. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ono, Koishi, and Kanno. Appeal 2020-005354 Application 15/523,062 4 OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. On this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited references for collectively teaching or suggesting the elements recited in the claims. Claim 1 Appellant’s Specification explains that “RAID groups may consist of magnetic disk drives, solid state drives (SSDs), or any other type of disk drive.” Spec. ¶ 3. “For performance reasons, each RAID group generally includes disk drives of like kind, as the speed of the RAID group as a whole is typically limited by the speed of its slowest disk drive.” Id. The Examiner finds that the combination of Ono and Koishi teaches the elements of claim 1. Appellant argues that Ono does not teach “in response to detecting that a first SSD in the RAID group has an endurance value that differs from that of a set of other SSDs in the RAID group, modifying the RAID group,” as recited in claim 1, because Ono manages SSDs individually, not as parts of RAID groups, and does not match SSDs within RAID groups based on endurance. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that Ono never mentions arranging SSDs in RAID groups based on endurance. Appeal Br. at 11. We are not persuaded by these arguments because we agree with the Examiner that Ono teaches SSDs collectively forming RAID groups. See Ans. 4; Ono, 15:30-38; Figs. 1-2. Moreover, Ono explains that if the life expectancy (i.e., endurance) of an SSD (e.g., SSD 60c) falls short of a predetermined threshold, information processing device 1 logically replaces the SSD with another SSD (e.g., SSD 60d). Ans. 4 (citing Ono, 4:20-22). Appeal 2020-005354 Application 15/523,062 5 Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Ono teaches that SSDs are managed individually for the purpose of determining which one of the SSDs in the RAID configuration is replaced based on its endurance value. Id. at 4- 5. Appellant also argues that Koishi fails to teach “varying a minimum time delay enforced between consecutive write operations to the RAID group to operate the RAID group at one of a faster rate of speed and a slower rate of speed, depending upon whether the second SSD has a higher or lower endurance value, respectively, than does the first SSD,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 12. In particular, Appellant argues that Koishi’s features relate to individual devices and not to any RAID group. Id. Appellant also argues that Koishi fails to mention any minimum time delay enforced between consecutive write operations. Id. We find these arguments unavailing for the reasons stated in the Answer. In particular, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Koishi’s storage device 3 corresponds to the RAID0. Ans. 5 (citing Koishi ¶ 416). Koishi teaches that the rate of writing to an installed device having endurance margin in a RAID group can be increased and the rate of writing with a short endurance installed device can be reduced. Id. (citing Koishi ¶¶ 260, 261, 416). As the Examiner explains, and we agree, when the rate of writing to an installed device having an endurance margin in a RAID group is increased, consequently, the average minimum delay between consecutive writes is decreased. Id. When the rate of writing to the installed device with a short endurance is reduced, then the average minimum delay between consecutive writes is increased. Id. In the absence of sufficient evidence or line of technical reasoning to the contrary, we find no reversible error. Appeal 2020-005354 Application 15/523,062 6 Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 15, which were argued together with claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9, 13. Dependent Claim 4 In the Final Rejection, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Nitta teaches the disputed limitation of claim 4, i.e., “establishing a desired service life of the RAID group, the desired service life indicating a lifespan of the RAID group before any of its SSDs fails and requires replacement.” Final Act. 18. Appellant argues that Nitta is “not concerned with RAID groups.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant also argues that the SSD 108 and HDD 107 of Nitta are used in different embodiments and cannot form a RAID group. Id. at 15. We are unpersuaded by these arguments because Appellant provides insufficient evidence that the Specification2 or claims limit the disputed limitation of claim 4 in a way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Nitta’s teachings, or by the combination of Ono, Koishi, and Nitta. Nitta teaches “a warning indication threshold value that determines an optimum timing for warning a requirement for replacement of the SSD 108 when the lifetime of the SSD 108 is close to end.” Nitta ¶ 39. Nitta explains 2 As the Examiner explains, Appellant’s Specification states that the service life of a RAID group may be established by determining the SSD in the RAID group with the smallest endurance value. Final Act. 18 (citing Spec. ¶ 35-40). “In an example, the RAID group 190a may be regarded as having an overall endurance value 230, which may be calculated as the minimum of the endurance values 220 across all SSDs 210(1-5).” Spec. ¶ 36. Appeal 2020-005354 Application 15/523,062 7 that the “lifetime of the SSD 108 is defined such that the data write quantity of the SSD 108 sums up to a TBW (Tera Byte Written).” Id. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that these disclosures, including the TBW of Nitta, therefore teach the claimed “establishing a desired service life of the RAID group, the desired service life indicating a lifespan of the RAID group before any of its SSDs fails and requires replacement,” as recited in dependent claim 4. Final Act. 18. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 4. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claim 17, which was argued together with claim 17, and for which Appellant presents no additional arguments. We also sustain the rejection of the remaining pending claims because Appellant does not present separate patentability arguments for those claims in the Briefs. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION We affirm the rejections. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 13, 15 103 Ono, Koishi 1, 13, 15 2, 3, 16 103 Ono, Koishi, Yu 2, 3, 16 11, 12 103 Ono, Koishi, Yu, Kankani 11, 12 6-10, 14, 17-20 103 Ono, Koishi, Yu, Fang 6-10, 14, 17-20 4 103 Ono, Koishi, Nitta 4 5 103 Ono, Koishi, Yu, Fang, Schmier 5 Appeal 2020-005354 Application 15/523,062 8 21 103 Ono, Koishi, Kanno 21 22 103 Ono, Koishi, Kanno, Nakamura 22 Overall Outcome 1-22 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