Ex Parte Pandit

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2012

11525637 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANIL KUMAR PANDIT
____________________

Appeal 2010-0072081
Application 11/525,637
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Honeywell International. (App. Br. 1.)

Appeal 2010-007208
Application 11/525,637

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-14 and 25. Claims 15-24 have been withdrawn. (App.
Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method for journaling operations to a file stored
in a flash memory (14) to thereby allow recovery of the file in the event of a
memory failure. (Spec. 5-7.) In particular, the flash memory contains a file
map including an entry about the file and a validity flag settable to three
different journaling states. Upon receiving a request to perform an operation
on the file, a semaphore corresponding to the file is locked, and the file map
is used to initialize a journaling session for the file operation. After
performing the requested operation, the file map is used to end the
journaling session. Then, the file semaphore is unlocked. (Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:

1. A method of journaling a file operation relating to a file
stored in a flash memory, the flash memory containing a file
map containing at least one entry about the file, the file map
also containing a validity flag settable to at least three different
journaling states, the method comprising:
locking a semaphore corresponding to the file on which a
file operation is to be performed;
initializing journaling of the file operation using the file
map;
Appeal 2010-007208
Application 11/525,637

3
performing the file operation on the file;
completing journaling of the file operation using the file
map; and,
unlocking the semaphore.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Fandrich US 5,592,641 Jan. 7, 1997
Hasbun US 6,412,040 B2 Jun. 25, 2002
Chang US 2005/0081099 A1 Apr. 14, 2005

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-14 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Chang, Hasbun, and Fandrich.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 11-27 and the Reply Brief, pages 1-4.
Representative Claim 1
Dispositive Issue: Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Chang, Hasbun, and Fandrich teaches or
suggests a flash memory having a file map containing an entry about a file
being journaled, and a validity flag settable to three different journaling
states as recited claim 1?
Appeal 2010-007208
Application 11/525,637

4
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that proposed
combination of references teaches or suggests the disputed limitations
emphasized above. (App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 2-4.) In particular,
Appellant argues that Chang at best discloses a logical volume manager that
maps application data to a storage medium, and that also includes a backup
flag settable to two different states. Appellant argues, however, that because
the journaling log is separate from the logical volume manager, and the host
adapter is merely an interface that translates read and write requests, Chang
does not teach or suggest using the file map for journaling file operations.
(Id.)
In response, the Examiner concludes that the claim does not recite
using a file map for journaling. Therefore, the Examiner finds Chang’s
disclosure of a host adapter within a flash memory in which the host adapter
is responsible for managing and translating read/write requests to the
memory, taken in combination with Chang’s disclosure of a logical volume
manager for mapping entries about the file, teaches the disputed limitations.
(Ans. 9-10.)
On the record before us, we do not agree with the Examiner’s findings
and ultimate conclusion of obviousness. First, we do not agree with the
Examiner that the claim does not require using a file map for journaling.
Instead, we agree with Appellant that the claim does require a file map
stored within flash memory, wherein the file map stores an entry about a file
being journaled, and wherein the file map is used for initializing and
Appeal 2010-007208
Application 11/525,637

5
completing the journaling of the file operation being performed. (Reply Br.
3.)
Figure 5 of Chang is reproduced below:

Figure 5 shows an exemplary diagram of a storage system. Figure 6 of
Chang is reproduced below:

Appeal 2010-007208
Application 11/525,637

6
Figure 6 depicts an exemplary diagram of the primary operational
components of a logical volume manager.
As depicted above, Chang discloses a host adapter (520) for managing
and translating read and write requests to a flash memory (540) (¶ [0047]).
Further, Chang discloses a logical volume manager (620) for mapping the
read and write requests to the flash memory (650). Chang also discloses a
separate log (614) for journaling the file system operations. Additionally,
Chang discloses a backup flag (625) having two settable states (“not set” for
indicating a write I/O request operation can be processed normally, and “set”
for indicating a point-in-time backup is in progress) (¶¶ [0069], [0070]).
Thus, we agree with Appellant that while the combination of Chang’s
host adapter and logical volume manager does teach a file map for mapping
application data to the flash memory, the disclosed file map is not used for
journaling requested activities in the log. Rather, the requested operations
are written in the log before they reach the logical volume manager or the
host adapter. Further, we agree with Appellant that while the disclosed file
map teaches a backup flag, it is only settable to two journaling states, and
not three as claimed. Because Appellant has shown at least one error in the
Examiner’s rejection, we need not reach Appellant’s other arguments. It
follows Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
over the proffered combination.
Because claims 2-14 and 25 recite the disputed limitations discussed
above, we find for the same aforementioned reasons that Appellant has
similarly shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of those claims.
Appeal 2010-007208
Application 11/525,637

7
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14 and 25.
REVERSED

msc