Ex Parte Voigt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2013

11648742 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DOUG VOIGT, MICHAEL K. TRAYNOR, and
SANTOSH ANANTH RAO1
____________________

Appeal 2011-003095
Application 11/648,742
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Non-
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, all pending claims in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The Real Party in Interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2011-003095
Application 11/648,742

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to apparatus, systems, and methods for
prioritizing input/outputs (I/Os) to storage devices. One embodiment
provides a method for extending the sophistication of Quality of Service
(QoS) management through a specific use of the SCSI group number relative
to the SCSI priority field. Spec. ¶ [008].
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 15 are exemplary claims representing various
aspects of the invention which are reproduced below (emphasis added to
disputed limitations):
1. A method, comprising:
receiving an input/output (I/O) command having a group
number that represents an application that generated the I/O
command and a priority number that represents a priority for
the I/O command at a target device;
changing the priority number based on a value of the
group number included in the I/O command to generate a new
priority number; and
processing the I/O command at the target device with the
new priority number.

2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Mar. 9, 2010); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Nov. 15, 2010); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Sep. 15, 2010); Non-Final Office Action (“NFOA,”
mailed Dec. 9, 2009); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
Dec. 29, 2006).
Appeal 2011-003095
Application 11/648,742

3
2. The method of claim 1, wherein priority numbers
in I/O commands are maintained when no group number is
included in the I/O commands.
3. The method of claim 1 further comprising,
mapping the value of the group number to the new priority
number.
4. The method of claim 1 further comprising, using
the group number as an index into one dimension of a multi-
dimensional table to determine the new priority number.
6. The method of claim 1 further comprising,
generating the new priority number based on both the value of
the group number and a value of the priority number.
15. The computer readable medium of claim 8 further
comprising, using a two-dimensional table to map the group
number field to the new priority value.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Khan US 2003/0119556 A1 Jun. 26, 2003
Miao US 2004/0032859 A1 Feb. 19, 2004
Flynn US 2005/0080940 A1 Apr. 14, 2005
X3T9.2, Project 375D, Information Technology - Small
Computer System Interface – 2 (Working Draft),
Computer & Business Equipment Manufacturers
Association, ISO/IEC 9316-1: 199x, ANSI X3.131 –
199x, Apr. 19, 1996. (Hereinafter “X3T9”).
Appeal 2011-003095
Application 11/648,742

4
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Flynn, Khan, and Miao in view of
X3T9. Ans. 4.
CLAIM GROUPING
Appellants separately argue the patentability of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6,
and 15, such that claims 5, 7-14 and 16-20 stand or fall with independent
claim 1, and claims 2-4 and 6 each stand or fall on their own merits. App.
Br. 14 and 18-20. We accept Appellants’ suggested claim grouping.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
1. Rejection of Claims 1, 5, 7-14, and 16-20
Appellants argue (App. Br. 14-18, 20-22; Reply Br. 2-4) that the
Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combination of Flynn, Khan, and Miao in view of X3T9 is in error.
These contentions present us with the following issues:
Issue 1a
Did the Examiner err in finding that the reference combination teaches
or suggests the limitations of “receiving an input/output (I/O) command
having a group number that represents an application that generated the I/O
command and a priority number that represents a priority for the I/O
command at a target device; [and] changing the priority number based on a
value of the group number included in the I/O command to generate a new
priority number,” as recited in claim 1?
Appeal 2011-003095
Application 11/648,742

5
Issue 1b
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 by failing to find proper
motivation to combine the cited prior art references in the manner
suggested?
Analysis
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions with respect to claim 1, and
we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and
rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Arguments. However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
Issue 1a
With respect to Issue 1a and claim 1, Appellants contend Flynn in
view of Khan and Miao do not teach or suggest the limitations of “receiving
an input/output (I/O) command . . .,” and “changing the priority number . . .
to generate a new priority number.” App. Br. 14-15. Further in this regard,
Appellants contend OP code 72 in Flynn determines whether the I/O priority
is set to a default, i.e., “controller 31 determines if the received command is
to set a default I/O priority (that is: is the operation code 72 set to x‘EB’).”
App. Br. 15 (citing Flynn ¶¶ [0034] and [0036]).
In addition, Appellants assert that Flynn’s operational code 72 is not a
group number that represents an application that generated the I/O
command, because the OP code is unrelated to representing an application
Appeal 2011-003095
Application 11/648,742

6
that generated the I/O, but instead sets a default priority for the I/O. App.
Br. 15.
With respect to the Examiner’s reliance upon Khan, Appellants
contend Khan is silent on any teaching or suggestion that a group number in
the packet represents an application that generated the I/O command, i.e.,
Khan never teaches or suggests that a packet itself would contain a field
(i.e., group number) that represents the application that generated the packet,
but instead merely teaches that packets are prioritized based on a type of
application, such as streaming media. App. Br. 15-16 (citing Khan
¶ [0025]).
With respect to the Examiner’s reliance upon Miao, Appellants
contend Miao does not teach or suggest that a group number in an I/O
command represents an application generating the I/O command, but instead
merely teaches that control information that requests an application to
display an image or video at the terminal of another caller can be transmitted
by a caller. App. Br. 16. Appellants further contend the Examiner does not
pinpoint a location in the cited prior art for teaching or suggesting changing
the priority number based on a value of the group number included in the
I/O command to generate a new priority number, resulting in the failure of
the Examiner to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability. Id.
Finally, Appellants contend “the examiner is incorrect in assuming,
without providing any evidence whatsoever, the extent of common
knowledge and how this knowledge would teach or suggest changing the
priority number based on a value of the group number included in the I/O
command to generate a new priority number.” App. Br. 18.
Appeal 2011-003095
Application 11/648,742

7
In response, the Examiner first states the “whole invention is pivoted
around reinterpreting group number field of existing SCSI Command
Descriptor Block (CDB) to reinterpret the default I/O priority set in the
same CDB.” Ans. 11 (citing Spec. ¶¶ [0009] and [0010]) (emphasis in
original). The Examiner further points out that Appellants’ Specification
discloses that “SCSI commands generally designate the initiator which also
includes a priority/group number field and the group number field represents
or identifies the application.” Ans. 12 (citing Spec. ¶ [0030]) (emphasis in
original).
In addition, the Examiner finds that the conventional SCSI CDB
includes a priority field and group number field. Ans. 13 (citing Flynn Fig.
3; and X3T9 § 7.2.1). The Examiner further finds the “initiator” designated
by the SCSI command also includes designation of an “application.”
Ans. 14 (citing Flynn Fig. 5 and ¶ [0010]). Thus, the Examiner concludes
that Flynn “mostly anticipated the claimed invention because Flynn '940
disclosed the invention of dynamically changing/updating default value of
the SCSI priority based on Group Code (with the Command Code) of a
command initiated by an application which is generally designated by the
command.” Ans. 14 (emphasis in original).
The Examiner also finds the “[o]nly differences between the claimed
invention in Instant Application and . . . Flynn . . . is that an initiator or an
application (which is already designated by the command somewhere)
specifically must be represented by the Group Code.” Ans. 15. The
Examiner relies upon Khan as teaching prioritization of packets based upon
an application type (Ans. 5 and 16 (citing Khan Fig. 2 and ¶ [0025])), and
Appeal 2011-003095
Application 11/648,742

8
relies upon Miao as teaching that assigning reserve fields for application
specific control information is also common knowledge. Ans. 17 (citing
Miao ¶ [0032]).
The Examiner further finds Khan does not need to teach a field that
represents an application that initiated or generated the application because
Flynn teaches a group number in a command data packet that initiated the
application, as well as teaching prioritizing packets based upon the type of
application, and also finds that Miao teaches a specific field is used to
represent the application. Ans. 18.
In the Reply, Appellants’ arguments also center on the individual
teachings of Flynn, Khan, and Miao, without addressing the combined
teachings and suggestions of the prior art combination. Reply Br. 2-4. We
are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
We agree with the Examiner because Appellants’ challenge to the
references individually (e.g., see id.) is not convincing of error in the
Examiner’s position. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)
(“[O]ne cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”
(citations omitted)). Additionally, “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007).
Appeal 2011-003095
Application 11/648,742

9
Issue 1b
With respect to Issue 1b, Appellants contend there are various factors
which support their contention that the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case for unpatentability. App. Br. 21-22. Appellants allege that these
factors include:
(1) Flynn is directed to a completely different invention than
Khan and/or Miao.
(2) Flynn, Khan, and Miao would have to be greatly
modified to arrive at the claimed invention.
(3) The differences between the claims and the applied
references are great.
(4) The Examiner is performing an improper piecemeal
construction that uses hindsight to arrive at the claim
elements.
(5) No reasonable expectation of success has been
established for modifying Flynn with the teachings of
Khan and Miao to arrive at the recitations of the claims.
(6) No teaching or suggestion exists to make the
combination because the references are directed to
solving completely different problems. Id.
Appellants contend “[t]hese various factors show that the claims are
not obvious in view of the Flynn and Miao.” App. Br. 22. We disagree with
Appellants’ contentions in this regard.
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions because the Examiner has
rebutted each of the above arguments in the Answer by a preponderance of
the evidence. Ans. 25-28. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and
underlying reasoning, which we incorporate herein by reference.
Appeal 2011-003095
Application 11/648,742

10
Further in this regard, the Examiner found that, with the proposed
combination, it would have been obvious to modify Flynn by Khan’s and
Miao’s teachings to provide an input/output (I/O) command having a group
number (reserved group codes) that represents an application (type of
application), in order to expand Flynn’s dynamic I/O priority assignment
feature based upon the type of media. Ans. 5-6. We find this articulated
rationale to be sufficient under KSR to justify the combination.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s
characterization of the cited art and related claim construction. Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. As
Appellants have not provided separate arguments with respect to
independent claims 8 and 16, or dependent claims 5, 7, 9-14, and 17-20, we
similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
2. Rejection of Claim 2
Issue 2
Appellants argue (App. Br. 18-19) that the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Flynn,
Khan, and Miao in view of X3T9 is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the reference combination teaches
or suggests “wherein priority numbers in I/O commands are maintained
Appeal 2011-003095
Application 11/648,742

11
when no group number is included in the I/O commands,” as recited in claim
2?
Analysis
Appellants contend Flynn teaches dynamically assigning the I/O
priority by an initiator, but does not teach or suggest that the I/O priority
number is maintained, “when no group number is included in the I/O
commands,” as recited in claim 2. App. Br. 19 (citing Flynn ¶ [0011]).
Appellants further contend “Flynn never even discusses presence or absence
of a group number,” and therefore claim 2 is allowable over the reference
combination. App. Br. 19.
The Examiner finds Flynn teaches maintaining priority numbers in
I/O commands when no group number is included in the I/O commands, i.e.,
using a default I/O priority, as evidence by the use of Op Codes which
consist of Group Codes, and maintaining an original default priority when
no Op Code is present. Ans. 6 and 21-22 (citing Flynn Fig. 5).
We agree with the Examiner because the conventional SCSI CDB
consists of a priority field and group number, which we find meets the
limitation in dispute. See Flynn Fig. 3, and X3T9 § 7.2.1.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in the rejection of claim 2, so that we sustain the rejection.
Appeal 2011-003095
Application 11/648,742

12
3. Rejection of Claim 3
Issue 3
Appellants argue (App. Br. 19) that the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Flynn,
Khan, and Miao in view of X3T9 is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the reference combination teaches
or suggests the limitations of “mapping the value of the group number to the
new priority number,” as recited in claim 3?
Analysis
Appellants contend that Flynn merely teaches that the priority can be
modified, but not that a “value of the group number” is mapped to a new
priority number, and that Flynn never discusses a relation between the group
number and priority number, as recited in claim 3. App. Br. 19 (citing Flynn
¶ [0026]).
We disagree with Appellants because Flynn’s Op Code is mapped to
an I/O priority, as evidenced by Flynn’s teaching of different default
priorities in which a priority is assigned to the Op Code depending on the
Group Code contained within the Op Code. Ans. 22 (citing Flynn Figs. 3
and 5); see also X3T9 §§ 7.2, 7.2.1, and Tables 23 and 24.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in the rejection of claim 3, so that we sustain the rejection.
Appeal 2011-003095
Application 11/648,742

13
4. Rejection of Claim 4
Issue 4
Appellants argue (App. Br. 19) that the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Flynn,
Khan, and Miao in view of X3T9 is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the reference combination teaches
or suggests the limitations of “using the group number as an index into one
dimension of a multi-dimensional table to determine the new priority
number,” as recited in claim 4?
Analysis
Appellants contend Flynn teaches a representation of a SCSI
command, but does not teach or suggest using the group number as an index
into one dimension of a multi-dimensional table to determine a new priority
number and, as a result, claim 4 is allowable over the reference combination.
App. Br. 19.
We disagree with Appellants’ contention since, as pointed out by the
Examiner (Ans. 23), the SCSI CDB consists of a multi-dimensional table, as
evidenced by an eight (8) bit Op Code (which includes a Group Code) in a
first row or byte of the CDB. See X3T9 Table 23 and § 7.2.1.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in the rejection of claim 4, so that we sustain the rejection.
Appeal 2011-003095
Application 11/648,742

14
5. Rejection of Claim 6
Issue 5
Appellants argue (App. Br. 20) that the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Flynn,
Khan, and Miao in view of X3T9 is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the reference combination teaches
or suggests the limitations of “generating the new priority number based on
both the value of the group number and a value of the priority number,” as
recited in claim 6?
Analysis
Appellants admit Flynn teaches that the subsystem device driver
(SDD) modifies the priority with which the I/O is processed, but contends
Flynn does not teach or suggest that these modifications include a new
priority number based on both the value of the group number and a value of
the priority number, such that claim 6 is allowable over the cited prior art
combination. App. Br. 20 (citing Flynn ¶¶ [0026] and [0028]).
We disagree with Appellants because, as pointed out by the Examiner,
Flynn teaches that new default priority is generated based on the Op Code
(which includes a Command Code), and that the original default priority
must be known before a new, different default priority is generated such that
the new priority is therefore based on both the value of the Group Code and
the value of the original priority. Ans. 24 (citing Flynn Fig. 5).
Appeal 2011-003095
Application 11/648,742

15
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in the rejection of claim 6, so that we sustain the rejection.
6. Rejection of Claim 15
Issue 6
Appellants argue (App. Br. 14-18; Reply Br. 2-4) that the Examiner’s
unpatentability rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Flynn, Khan, and Miao in view of X3T9 is in error. These
contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the reference combination teaches
or suggests the limitations of “using a two-dimensional table to map the
group number field to the new priority value,” as recited in claim 15?
Analysis
Appellants contend the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case for unpatentability because the Examiner did not cite a specific location
in Flynn, Khan, and Miao as teaching the disputed limitation. App. Br. 20.
Appellants further contend the reference combination does not teach or
suggest using a two-dimensional table to map the group number field to the
new priority value. Id.
We disagree with Appellants since, as pointed out by the Examiner, a
two dimensional table is a multi-dimensional table. Ans. 25; see also
Ans. 23 (discussing the recitation in claim 4 of “using the group number as
an index into one dimension of a multi-dimensional table to determine the
new priority number.”). Further, as pointed out, supra, the SCSI CDB
Appeal 2011-003095
Application 11/648,742

16
consists of a multi-dimensional table, as evidenced by an eight (8) bit Op
Code (which includes a Group Code) in a first row or byte of the CDB. See
X3T9 Table 23 and § 7.2.1.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in the rejection of claim 15, so that we sustain the rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to the unpatentability rejection
of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Flynn,
Khan, and Miao in view of X3T9, and the rejection is sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

msc