Ex Parte Lau et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 27, 201311352766 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2013) 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. 11/352,766 02/13/2006 Kenneth Dean Lau 3023824 US02 5790 67070 7590 11/27/2013 Spectra Logic Corporation 6285 Lookout Road Boulder, CO 80301 EXAMINER DRAVININKAS, ADAM B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2688 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/27/2013 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 KENNETH DEAN LAU and MATTHEW THOMAS STARR ____________ Appeal 2011-004806 Application 11/352,766 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004806 Application 11/352,766 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a data storage library comprising a plurality of docking stations adapted to receive a disc drive magazine wherein the magazine has a plurality of disc drives. The disc drive magazine is capable of changing from a fully active state to at least one quiescent state when storage operations as performed by the magazine requires less than a fully active magazine. Abstract. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A data storage library comprising: at least one of a plurality of docking stations adapted to receive a drive magazine wherein the magazine comprises a plurality of drives; a loading device adapted to automatically engage the magazine with the at least one docking station to establish a communication link between the magazine and the at least one docking station; a retaining device adapted to retain the magazine when engaged with the at least one docking station and when the magazine is in at least an active state; at least one interface adapted to establish a communication link capable of transferring data between at least one data consumer and the library; Appeal 2011-004806 Application 11/352,766 3 the magazine capable of storing data received by the at least one data consumer when linked with the at least one docking station; the magazine when engaged responsive to a controller residing in the data storage library that controls the power supplied individually to each of the plurality of drives and thereby capable of changing from a fully active state wherein the controller sends a fully operational power level to each of the plurality of drives to at least one quiescent state wherein the controller sends a reduced operational power level to at least one of the plurality of drives when storage operations performed by the magazine require less than a fully active magazine. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yip (U.S. Patent Pub. 2004/0181388 A1, Sep. 16, 2004) in view of Shoji (U.S. Patent 4,583,133, Apr. 15, 1996). 2. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 7, 12-20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yip in view of Shoji, and further in view of Searle (U.S. Patent 5,235,474, Aug. 10, 1993). 3. The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yip in view of Shoji and Searle, and further in view of Huser (Alois Huser, Power Management With Windows Server 2003, Energie Schweiz, Federal Office for Energy (Apr. 2004), http://www.bfe.admin.ch/php/modules/publikationen/stream.php?extl ang=en&name=en_667716303.pdf). Appeal 2011-004806 Application 11/352,766 4 ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Yip in view of Shoji teaches the limitation of: the magazine when engaged responsive to a controller residing in the data storage library that controls the power supplied individually to each of the plurality of drives and thereby capable of changing from a fully active state wherein the controller sends a fully operational power level to each of the plurality of drives to at least one quiescent state wherein the controller sends a reduced operational power level to at least one of the plurality of drives when storage operations performed by the magazine require less than a fully active magazine. Claim 1. THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 9-11, and 21 Appellants argue that the references in combination are non-obvious and, furthermore, there would be no expectation of success based on the fact Appeal 2011-004806 Application 11/352,766 5 that a) Shoji and Yip use fundamentally different technologies so a skilled artisan cannot rely on transposing a specific function associated with a device from one reference to a like device in another reference, and b) the Office has failed to at least show some pattern within the two references by substantially aligning their pertinent features (Br. 14). We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We agree with the Examiner that both Yip and Shoji disclose magnetic disks being inserted into drives for reading the magnetic disks and sending data to a central computer (Ans. 19). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that there is no fundamental difference in these two technologies as stated by Appellants, but rather the only difference is the way in which the disks and drives are controlled by way of differing power control schemes (id.). We further agree with the Examiner that there need not be a one-to-one correspondence of the elements in order to combine the references (Ans. 20). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, but rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. The Examiner relied on the teaching of Shoji’s power controller for the teaching of a controller (12) capable of controlling power individually to each of a plurality of drives (40, 42, 44, 46) for changing from a fully active state, wherein the controller sends a fully operational power level (IN USE) to each of the plurality of drives, to at least one quiescent state, wherein the controller sends a reduced operational power level (DRIVE SELECT) to at least one of the plurality of drives when storage operations performed by the Appeal 2011-004806 Application 11/352,766 6 magazine require less than a fully active magazine (Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 16-32, col. 4, ll. 35-50). The Examiner combined Yip’s teaching of a disk drive system with Shoji’s teaching of a power controller to reduce the power requirement of the entire storage data (Shoji’s col. 1, ll. 46-51). See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1 and, for the same reasons discussed above, the rejections of claims 2, 9-11, and 21. Claim 5 Appellants argue that Yip discloses only a retaining device that only senses the insertion of an electrical connector in a socket (Br. 17). Appellants assert that there is no mention in Yip of a sensing system for the retaining device that monitors when the magazine is engaged and active with a docking station, as featured in Appellants’ claim 5 (id.). We agree with the Examiner that Yip’s paragraph [0047], discloses connectors of the socket which mechanically actuate in response to the insertion of the electrical connector of the cartridge (Ans. 20). When the electrical connector is inserted, the cartridge has at least some power, which places the cartridge in at least a low-power state of activity (id.). Therefore, when the electrical connector is inserted, the sensor would be able to detect when the magazine is both engaged and active (id. at 20-21). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. Claim 6 Appellants argue that the combination of Yip and Shoji does not teach the limitation of claim 6 (Br. 18-19). Appellants in particular argue that even if Yip’s gripper is equivalent to an ejection switch, Yip is still silent about an eject switch activated to eject a magazine based on a sensing Appeal 2011-004806 Application 11/352,766 7 system, let alone when a sensing system that determines a magazine is substantially inactive, as required by Appellants’ claim 6. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the gripper actuates a lever which controls the clamping and releasing of the cartridge as described in Yip (¶ [0047]). We further agree with the Examiner that Shoji teaches a motor control circuit (48) (col. 4, ll. 53-60), which receives IN USE signals from the IN USE circuits in order to determine when the drives are spinning and in use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the motor control circuit described in Shoji to determine when the drives were spinning and in use in combination with an eject switch mechanism so that while the disks were in use, the disks would not be ejected (Ans. 21). We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Yip with Shoji’s teaching to prevent damage to the disks by being ejected while they were still spinning and in use (id.). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Claim 7 Appellants argue that claim 7 recites, “‘the at least one quiescent state is a state wherein less than all of the drives are dormant in the magazine,’” and Searle’s magazine does not have the capacity to be in any kind of active or dormant state resembling Appellants’ claimed invention because Searle is merely a mobile media shelf system (Br. 19). We do not agree. The Examiner relied upon Shoji, not Searle, for the teaching of a controller which controls power individually to the drives to create at least one quiescent state wherein less than all of the drives are dormant in the magazine (Ans. 22). Appeal 2011-004806 Application 11/352,766 8 Accordingly, we affirm the Examiners rejection of claim 7. Claim 8 Appellants argue that Yip does not disclose “at least one quiescent state being a state wherein all of the drives are dormant,” as required by claim 8 (Br. 20). We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5) that Yip discloses at least one quiescent state wherein all of the disc drives are dormant and the magazine is in a substantially inactive state when the cartridge 30 is removed from the socket, the power connection is broken, thereby leading to all disc drives being dormant in the magazine (see Fig. 4; ¶ [0047]). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. Claims 3 and 4 Appellants argue that there is no one-to-one correspondence between Searle’s magazine and Appellants’ magazine, and thus, one skilled in the art would not have combined the references of Searle, Yip, and Shoji (Br. 16). Appellants raise similar arguments with respect to claim 4 (id.). We do not agree, because the test is what the combined teachings of the combined references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 4. Claims 12-20, 22, and 23 We have considered Appellants’ arguments raised with respect to claims 12-20, 22, and 23. We direct Appellants’ attention to the Examiner’s Appeal 2011-004806 Application 11/352,766 9 findings and conclusions as articulated in the Answer which we adopt as our own without repetition herein (Ans. 23-24). We further note that we do not agree with Appellants’ argument regarding claim 17, that the Examiner did not identify the “means for automatically drawing a mobile drive magazine towards a connecting surface of one of a plurality of docking stations comprised by the library.” The Examiner addressed the same feature with respect to claim 1 regarding automatically engaging the magazine with the docking station establishing a communication link (Ans. 4; Yip, Fig. 8, ¶ [0067]). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 12-20, 22, and 23. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Yip in view of Shoji teaches the limitation of: the magazine when engaged responsive to a controller residing in the data storage library that controls the power supplied individually to each of the plurality of drives and thereby capable of changing from a fully active state wherein the controller sends a fully operational power level to each of the plurality of drives to at least one quiescent state wherein the controller sends a reduced operational power level to at least one of the plurality of drives when storage operations performed by the magazine require less than a fully active magazine Claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-23 is affirmed. Appeal 2011-004806 Application 11/352,766 10 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation