Ex Parte Trask et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 2012

11187149 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BARRETT TRASK, ROBERY GILANYI, and ARTHUR L. SABSEVITZ ____________ Appeal 2010-004840 Application 11/187,149 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JUSTIN BUSCH, and RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004840 Application 11/187,149 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-24, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for cache management by creating a resource group and managing one or more subsequent requests based on cache management policies developed for the resource group (see Spec. ¶ [0003]). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of file cache management in a computer system, comprising: creating a resource group that will include a set of processes that are running in the computer system, said creating the resource group comprising selecting processes as members of the resource group; developing one or more cache management policies for the resource group, wherein the one or more policies are used for managing cache memory in the computer system and are created by use of an interface module; downloading the one or more cache management policies from the interface module to a file cache management system that enforces cache management policies; and managing one or more subsequent requests for cache memory in accordance with the one or more cache management policies, wherein the one or more subsequent requests are transmitted from a process in the resource group. Appeal 2010-004840 Application 11/187,149 3 The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Zohar (US 2006/0143395 A1) and Jamadagni (US 2003/0143988 A1). (See Ans. 3-12). Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-24 as being obvious over the combination of Zohar and Jamadagni because the references fail to teach or suggest all the limitations recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Zohar discloses all the claimed features except for the step of “downloading the one or more cache management policies from the interface module to a file cache management system that enforces cache management policies” (Ans. 3-5). The Examiner further relies on Jamadagni for disclosing or suggesting the limitation missing in Zohar (Ans. 5-6). The Examiner concludes that modifying Zohar with Jamadagni would have improved the efficiency of the cache “by maintaining the related data in the cache or by discarding it as a single unit” (Ans. 6). Appellants argue that, collectively, the managed groups of the “allocation units” disclosed in paragraph 30 of Zohar is not the same as the claimed “resource group that includes a set of processes that are running in the computer system, where a process in the resource group is to transmit one or more requests for cache memory” (App. Br. 5). Appellants further contend that “a unit of storage space (allocation unit) is not the same as a Appeal 2010-004840 Application 11/187,149 4 process that runs in the computer system and that is able to transmit a request for cache memory” (id.).1 In response, the Examiner states (Ans. 14) that: [T]he limitations of “creating a resource group that will include a set of processes that are running in the computer system, said creating the resource group comprising selecting processes as members of the resource group” can be interpreted as (i.e., the selected operative criterion may be implemented in the groups management module 122, and the groups management module 122 may be adapted to use the operative criterion to define, create and manage groups of allocation units. In accordance with further embodiments of the present invention, the groups management module 122 may be adapted to create and manage the groups of allocation units in accordance with at least the selected operative criterion (block 220). The Examiner concludes that a “process” can be construed as creating and managing the groups of allocation units (id.). We agree with Appellants’ contentions above and those presented in the Reply Brief. Specifically, we agree with Appellants (see Reply Br. 2-3) and find that the shift in the Examiner’s position equating the claimed process, included in the resource group, with managing the allocation units in Zohar falls short of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. As stated by Appellants (Reply Br. 3), the Examiner’s proposed position reads the claimed “resource group” on the groups management module 122 of Zohar which actually creates and manages groups of allocation units (id.). 1 Appellants present additional arguments regarding the recited step of downloading cache management policies of claim 1 and the propriety of combining Zohar with Jamadagni (App. Br. 5-7). We do not reach those arguments as the contention addressed above is dispositive of the issue under appeal. Appeal 2010-004840 Application 11/187,149 5 While Zohar describes the allocation units as allocation units of cache storage space for storing data (¶ [0027]), no part of managing these allocation units by the groups management module 122 is similar to the claimed “creating a resource group” which comprises “selecting processes as members of the resource group,” recited in claim 1. CONCLUSIONS On the record before us, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, as well as independent claims 9 and 17 which recite similar limitations, and claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-24 dependent therefrom. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-24 is reversed. REVERSED tj