Ex Parte Anderson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 2017

13524484 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2017)

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. 13/524,484 06/15/2012 Clark A. Anderson POU920120133US1 6267 46429 7590 11/01/2017 C ANTOR mT RT TRN T T P-TRM POT TOHKFFPSTF EXAMINER 20 Church Street RANKIN, CANDICE A 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2132 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/01/2017 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CLARK A. ANDERSON, EDWARD W. CHENCINSKI, JON S. ENTWISTLE, ADRIAN C. GERHARD, THOMAS J. GRIFFIN, CHARLES E. MARI, KENNETH J. OAKES, STEVEN M. PARTLOW, PETER G. SUTTON, ELPIDA TZORTZATOS, and DUSTIN J. VANSTEE Appeal 2017-005743 Application 13/524,4841 Technology Center 2100 Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—8, 10-15, and 17—20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation (App. Br. 2). Appeal 2017-005743 Application 13/524,484 THE CLAIMED INVENTION The present invention generally relates to flash memory, and more particularly to optimizing the performance of write operations in flash memory. Spec. 11. Independent claim 1 is directed to a computer system; independent claim 8 is directed to a computer-implemented method; and independent claim 15 is directed to a computer program product. App. Br. 8-11. Claim 1 recites: 1. A computer system for optimizing write performance of a flash device, the system comprising: a real storage manager configured to control a main memory; an auxiliary storage manager in communication with the real storage manager, the auxiliary storage manager configured to control an auxiliary storage, the auxiliary storage device including the flash device, the system configured to perform a method comprising: receiving a request to evict a plurality of pages from the main memory, wherein the plurality of pages are non-contiguous in the main memory; determining a block size for the flash device; grouping the plurality of pages from the main memory into a move specification block for transmission from the main memory to the auxiliary storage device, wherein a size of the move specification block is the block size; and writing the move specification block to the flash device, wherein the plurality of pages are written to occupy contiguous address space in the auxiliary storage device, wherein the block size is determined based on one or more operational characteristics of the flash device and wherein the one or more operational characteristics comprise a read/write history of the flash device. 2 Appeal 2017-005743 Application 13/524,484 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 3—8, 10-15, and 17—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ware (US 2012/0005412 Al, published Jan. 5, 2012), Neuhard et al. (US 5,394,539, published Feb. 28, 1995) (“Neuhard”), Mukker et al. (US 2013/0254457 Al, published Sep. 26, 2013) (“Mukker”), and Horn et al. (US 2011/0167239 Al, published July 7, 2011) (“Horn”). Final Act. 4-5. ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Action and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. “Real storage manager ” is provided allocation block size and “groups evicted pages into move specification blocks ” Claim 1 recites “the system comprising: a real storage manager configured to control a main memory; an auxiliary storage manager in communication with the real storage manager, the auxiliary storage manager configured to control an auxiliary storage, the auxiliary storage device including the flash device” and “the system configured to perform a method comprising . . . grouping the plurality of pages from the main memory into a move specification block for transmission from the main memory to the auxiliary storage device.” Appellants contend that Horn does not teach that allocation block size is “provided to a real storage manager or that the real storage manager groups evicted pages into move specification blocks that have a size equal to the allocation block size for transmission to the flash device.” App. Br. 7 3 Appeal 2017-005743 Application 13/524,484 However, claim 1 does not recite allocation block size is “provided to a real storage manager or that the real storage manager groups evicted pages into move specification blocks.” (Emphasis added). Rather, the claim recites “the system configured to perform a method comprising . . . grouping the plurality of pages from the main memory into a move specification block for transmission from the main memory to the auxiliary storage device.” (Emphasis added). Paragraph 17 of Appellants’ Specification discloses an exemplary embodiment wherein “the auxiliary storage manager 206 is configured to group the pages together and write the group to flash device 212.” In light of Appellants’ Specification, the scope of claim 1 encompasses an auxiliary storage manager grouping pages together and writing the group to the flash device in a block size, such as block management module 111 of Horn grouping data into an allocation block adapted for page size, among other things, then writing the allocation block to flash 113 (Fig. 1, H 7-9, 20, 23). “Block size is determined based on ... a read/write history ” Claim 1 recites “wherein a size of the move specification block is the block size” and “wherein the block size is determined based on one or more operational characteristics of the flash device and wherein the one or more operational characteristics comprise a read/write history of the flash device.” The Examiner finds Horn teaches block size being adapted based upon an access history. Final Act. 6—7 (citing Horn || 7—9, 20). Appellants contend Horn does not teach the system “group [ing] data, or files, into move specification blocks having the pre-determined block size for transmission to the flash device.” App. Br. 7. 4 Appeal 2017-005743 Application 13/524,484 However, claim 1 does not recite the block size is “pre-determined block size for transmission to the flash device.” Rather, the claim recites “determining a block size for the flash device . . . wherein the block size is determined based on one or more operational characteristics of the flash device and wherein the one or more operational characteristics comprise a read/write history of the flash device." Thus, the scope of the claimed block size is broader than Appellants’ argued “pre-determined block size,” and merely requires being based on “a read/write history of the flash device.” Appellants’ contention that claim 1 requires the block size be a pre determined block size is not persuasive of Examiner error because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. See In re Self 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (rejecting arguments “not based on limitations appearing in the claims”).. Horn teaches “the processing logic of process may maintain a usage history of a file based on a sequence of usage requests to access a file” by monitoring “each usage request, e.g. file read/write requests, to the file and record a history accordingly.” Horn | 32. As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 6—7), Horn teaches “heuristic... for an optimal allocation block size on a file-by-file basis by monitoring a history of HO (input/output) requests or usage requests to each individual file.” Horn 120 (emphasis added). Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s finding that “wherein the block size is determined based on one or more operational characteristics of the flash device and wherein the one or more operational characteristics comprise a read/write history of the flash device,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added), is taught by Horn’s determining allocation block size based on a history of usage requests such as read/write requests 5 Appeal 2017-005743 Application 13/524,484 (i.e., a read/write history). Final Act. 6—7. Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejection of claims 3—8, 10-15, and 17—20, not separately argued. See App. Br. 7. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 3—8, 10-15, and 17—20 is affirmed. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED 6