Ex Parte Duncan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 26, 2016

11589544 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111589,544 10/28/2006 Robert Duncan 56436 7590 04/28/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 82223018 4887 EXAMINER MCCARTHY, CHRISTOPHER S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2113 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/28/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT DUNCAN and JOHN CZERKOWICZ Appeal2014-008632 Application 11/589,544 Technology Center 2100 Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, STEPHEN C. SIU, and RAMA G. ELLURU Administrative Patent Judges. SIU, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-008632 Application 11/589,544 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). The disclosed invention relates generally to managing removable media. Spec. 3. Claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A tape drive, comprising: a media reader for reading a removable tape cartridge containing current data for restoring a failed computer system; a fixed non-volatile memory storing media management records that uniquely identify the removable tape cartridge containing the current data for restoring the failed computer system, wherein the tape drive 1s an external peripheral device to the computer system. The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in support of the rejections: Trimmer Huebsch Arakawa Anna US 2004/0044863 Al US 7,127,535 Bl US 7,185,048 B2 US 2008/0126522 Al Mar. 4, 2004 Oct. 24, 2006 Feb.27,2007 May 29, 2008 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 1999 ("Microsoft"). The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 6-11, 14--18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huebsch, Arakawa, and Trimmer; claims 4, 1 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being 1 The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Huebsch, Trimmer, and Arakawa. Claim 4 depends from claim 1. Therefore, we assume the Examiner rejects claim 4 as obvious over Huebsch, Trimmer, Arakawa, and Microsoft. 2 Appeal2014-008632 Application 11/589,544 unpatentable over Huebsch, Trimmer, Arakawa, and Microsoft; and claims 52 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huebsch, Trimmer, Arakawa, and Anna. ANALYSIS Claims 1-3, 6-11, 14--18, and 20-Huebsch, Trimmer, and Arakawa Claim 1, for example, recites a tape drive comprising a media reader and a fixed non-volatile memory storing media management records. Appellants argue that "none of the references cited by the Examiner disclose a tape drive that can receive a removable tape cartridge and also includes a fixed, non-volatile memory that is used to store information for locating a particular removable media that contains backup data." App. Br. 8. In particular, Appellants argue that Trimmer fails to disclose "a fixed non- volatile memory storing information" and, therefore, "does not remedy the deficiencies of Huebsch ... and 1A .. rakav1a." App. Br. 9-10. \Ve are not persuaded by Appellants' argument for at least the reasons set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 2, 3, 9-11. For example, Trimmer discloses a "storage medium 18" on which "[ o ]ne or more virtual libraries are defined." Trimmer i-f 23. The "storage medium 18" is a "data storage medium" that "includ[ es] disks, disk subsystems, hard drives ... " Trimmer i-f 21. In other words, "storage medium 18" is a "fixed non-volatile memory" and stores a "virtual library." 2 The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Huebsch, Trimmer, and Arakawa. Claim 5 depends from claim 1. Therefore, we assume the Examiner rejects claim 5 as obvious over Huebsch, Trimmer, Arakawa, and Anna. 3 Appeal2014-008632 Application 11/589,544 Trimmer also discloses that a "virtual library" includes "identifying bar codes or labels used on the physical data storage device" that are "stored as a virtual tape within the virtual tape library." Trimmer i-fi-128, 44. These barcodes "allow the system ... to monitor virtual tapes in a virtual tape library" and are used to "manage and select various virtual tapes," that are "stored in the header extension ... for each block of data on a data disk [i.e., a "fixed non-volatile memory"]," and that "the contents of the physical data storage device ... including its structure and virtual barcode are ... copied to the virtual library." Trimmer i-fi-1 40, 48. In other words, Trimmer discloses a fixed non-volatile memory (i.e., storage medium 18 or a "block of data on a data disk") that stores media management records that uniquely identify the removable tape cartridge containing data (i.e., stores a virtual tape library that includes a bar code that identifies a virtual tape), as recited in claim 1. Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Huebsch and Trimmer because "the mere fact that both Huebsch and Trimmer disclose tape libraries does not explain why a person would combine Huebsch and Trimmer to create the media drive recited by the present claims." App. Br. 11. Huebsch discloses a system for storing back-up data that includes a storage unit containing tape drives, that back-up data in Huebsch is stored in the storage unit and that the storage unit may include a "tape," that the data is identified through the use of a "client ID tag" stored on a tape, and that "those skilled in the art [would] recognize that other storage media may be used." Huebsch 3:5, 12-14, 29-30, 51-53, Fig. 1. Hence, Huebsch 4 Appeal2014-008632 Application 11/589,544 discloses a non-volatile memory that stores media management records that uniquely identify a tape cartridge containing desired back-up data and that the non-volatile memory may include either a tape or "other storage media." Although Huebsch discloses that either a tape or "other storage media" may be used to store media management records that uniquely identify a tape cartridge, the Examiner states that Huebsch does not disclose explicitly that the system includes a fixed memory that stores the media management records but that Trimmer makes up for this deficit of Huebsch. We note that Trimmer also discloses a system for storing back-up data that includes storing a bar code that "monitor[ s] virtual tapes in a virtual tape library" and that is "stored in the header extension ... on a data disk." Trimmer i-fi-1 40, 48. Hence, Trimmer discloses media management records (i.e., a barcode) that is stored on a "data disk" (i.e., afixed non-volatile memory). We agree with the Examiner that Huebsch discloses storing media management records on non-volatile memory that includes tapes or "other storage media." We also agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that "other storage media" includes "disks, disk subsystems, [and] hard drives," as disclosed by Trimmer. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the media management records of Huebsch may be stored on tapes or "other storage media," as disclosed by Huebsch and that "other storage media" includes the known storage media of "disks, disk subsystems, hard drives," etc., which include "fixed" media. Such a combination of known elements performing their known functions would have resulted in no more than the predictable result of storing data (e.g., media management records of Huebsch or 5 Appeal2014-008632 Application 11/589,544 Trimmer) on known storage media such as the known "fixed" media disclosed by Trimmer. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appellants provide similar arguments in support of claims 3, 6-11, 14--18, and 20. App. Br. 11-12. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments in support of these claims for at least the previously discussed reasons. Claims 4, 12, and 19 - Huebsch, Trimmer, Arakawa, and Microsoft Appellants provide similar arguments in support of claims 4, 12, and 19 and do not provide additional arguments with respect to Microsoft. App. Br. 12-13. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments in support of these claims for at least the previously discussed reasons. Claims 5 and 13 - Huebsch, Trimmer, Arakawa, and Anna Appellants provide similar arguments in support of claims 5 and 13 and do not provide additional arguments with respect to Anna. App. Br. 13- 15. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments in support of these claims for at least the previously discussed reasons. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6-11, 14--18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huebsch, Trimmer, 6 Appeal2014-008632 Application 11/589,544 and Arakawa; Claims 4, 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huebsch, Trimmer, Arakawa, and Microsoft; and claims 5 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huebsch, Trimmer, Arakawa, and Anna. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7