Ex Parte WANG

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 2019

14739996 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/739,996 06/15/2015 136453 7590 Rimon Law - BRIGHTIP 2479 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 02/04/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Donglin WANG 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. R2127-02900 2002 EXAMINER CHOE, YONGJ ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2135 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/04/2019 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): S VDocketing@Rimonlaw.com David.Xue@Rimonlaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DONGLIN WANG Appeal 2018-004688 Application 14/739,996 Technology Center 2100 Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1-5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal 2018-004688 Application 14/739,996 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a redundant storage system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A redundant storage system, comprising: at least one server, at least one SAS (Serial Attached Small Computer System Interface) switch, and at least two storage devices; wherein each of the at least one server comprises an interface card; each of the at least one server is connected to the at least one SAS switch through a SAS port of the interface card; each of the at least two storage devices is connected to the at least one SAS switch through a SAS interface; each of the at least two storage devices comprises at least one physical disk; physical disks respectively included in different storage devices constitute a RAID (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) group. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: ANDO US 2012/0239789 Al Sep. 20, 2012 REJECTION Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C Â§I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by ANDO. OPINION We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Final Office Action, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if Appellant failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 2 Appeal 2018-004688 Application 14/739,996 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived). Appellant argues that the limitation of "physical disks respectively included in different storage devices constitute a RAID (Redundant Array of Independent Disks) group," as recited in claim 1, is not disclosed by Ando. Br. 9. Appellant relies on multiple Wikipedia definitions to make a distinction between a Hard Disk Drive and a physical disk, asserting that a "physical disk" as recited in claim 1 corresponds to a Hard Disk Drive 50-n in ANDO. Br. 11-12. Appellant essentially argues that the limitation "storage device" in claim 1 actually corresponds to a storage device 1 in ANDO. Br. 13. Appellant asserts that "physical disks" included in "DIFFERENT 'storage devices"' constitute a RAID group in claim 1, whereas ANDO's Hard Disk Drives (50-1-50n) are included in "ONE SAME" (i.e., one and the same) storage device 1 constituting a RAID group. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. The Examiner finds the two storage devices in claim 1 are devices that can store and retrieve digital information, and the Hard Disk Drives (50-1-50-n) in Figure 1 of ANDO can store and retrieve digital information as well. Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds that there is NO difference between the two storage devices in claim 1 and the Hard Disk Drives (50-1-50-n) in Figure 1 of ANDO functionally and physically. Id. The Examiner concludes that the Hard Disk Drives (50-1 and 50-2) in Figure 1 of ANDO clearly can be read as the two storage devices in claim 1. Id. We agree with the Examiner's findings. The Microsoft Computer Dictionary, in pertinent part, defines a hard disk or hard disk drive as 3 Appeal 2018-004688 Application 14/739,996 [a] device containing one or more inflexible platters coated with material in which data can be recorded magnetically, together with their read/write heads, the head-positioning mechanism, and the spindle motor in a sealed case that protects against outside contaminants . . . Most hard disks contain from two to eight platters. See The Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., pg. 246), copyrighted 2002; see also Figure illustrating HDD below. Read/write r1ead Hatil rJisk.L If~{?' c~?~.:::ft r.~f th.i.1 f~ard tiisk h~~rs t.~f~tn rt\~~'~t?-rÂ·ed: ~)} ,ft':~Â·?fill th~~ t}Otl.::p.ot.