Goss, Ryan James. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 14, 2020

2019003976 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2020)

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. 12/763,003 04/19/2010 Ryan James Goss STL16191 4656 73462 7590 10/14/2020 Hall Estill - Seagate Technology LLC 100 North Broadway, Suite 2900 Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820 EXAMINER ALSIP, MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2136 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/14/2020 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): USPTO@dockettrak.com amelia.pharofrank@seagate.com okcipdocketing@hallestill.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RYAN JAMES GOSS, KEVIN GOMEZ, MARK ALLEN GAERTNER, and BRUCE DOUGLAS BUCH Appeal 2019-003976 Application 12/763,003 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 7–16, 18, 19, and 21, all of the claims pending.2 Claims App. Claims 5, 6, 17, and 20 have been canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held 1 We refer to the Specification filed Apr. 19, 2010 (“Spec.”); the Final Office Action, mailed June 4, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed Dec. 6, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Feb. 26, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed April 26, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Seagate Technology LLC as the real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-003976 Application 12/763,003 2 in this appeal on September 23, 2020. A transcript of the oral hearing will be entered into the record in due course. We affirm, and designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection. II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a method and system for updating stored user data in memory (118) in response to receiving access commands from computer host (102). Spec., 6:8–14. Figures 1 and 6, reproduced and discussed below, are useful for understanding the claimed subject matter: Figure 1 above illustrates host (102) sending commands to storage device (100) via interface (104) to update user data in memory (118). Id. at 3:21– 25. Appeal 2019-003976 Application 12/763,003 3 Figure 6 above illustrates memory (118) having a plurality of channels (ch. 0–15) for storing full stripes of user data (ch. 0–14) along with associated parity data (ch. 15) accessible via buffer (116) having indices aligned with the channels for temporarily storing updated data for users 1’ and 5’ in channels 0 and 1 respectively. Id. at 2:15–17, 7:7–13. In particular, responsive to the host access commands to update first and second user data (e.g., users 1 and 5) stored in the full stripes of memory (118), controller (106) executes memory control logic (140) that computes new parity data (P (1’ +5’)) for a partial stripe stored in buffer (116) including the updated first and second user data without using old user data and old parity data stored in memory (118). Id. at 7:7–13. Claims 1, 13, and 21 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative: Appeal 2019-003976 Application 12/763,003 4 1. A data storage apparatus configured to store data and in communication with a computer host to receive host access commands to update stored data, the data storage apparatus comprising: a memory having a predetermined plurality of channels storing full stripes of data, each full stripe of data storing user data from the computer host in each of a predetermined subset of the channels and storing parity data in each of the rest of the channels that is computed for the user data stored in the respective full stripe; a buffer having indices aligned with the channels in the memory and temporarily storing updated user data from the computer; and a processor-based controller executing memory control logic that, responsive to the host access commands to update first user data stored in one of the full stripes in the memory and to update second user data stored in another one of the full stripes in the memory, computes new parity data for a partial stripe stored in the buffer that includes the updated first and second user data without using any old user data and without using any old parity data stored in the memory. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). III. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following references.3 Name Reference Date Neufeld US 5,333,305 July 26, 1994 Santeler US 2002/0194530 A1 Dec. 19, 2002 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2019-003976 Application 12/763,003 5 IV. REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 7–16, 18, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Santeler and Neufeld. Final Act. 2–5. V. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments in the order they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5–10 and the Reply Brief, pages 2–10.4 Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Santeler and Neufeld teaches or suggests updating user data stored in full stripes contained in memory by computing new parity data for a partial stripe of the updated data stored in a buffer without using old data from memory, as recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 21. Appeal Br. 5. In particular, Appellant argues that Neufeld does not cure the admitted deficiencies of Santeler because Neufeld updates data already stored in memory by writing updated data back to the same stripe in which old data was stored. Id. at 7 (citing Neufeld 2:50–51, 3:35–44). According to Appellant, Neufeld expressly requires reading old data stored in memory when writing a partial stripe of updated data, whereas the disputed limitation requires using new data in a partial stripe as opposed to using old data in a full stripe to compute new parity data. Id. Further, Appellant argues that Neufeld teaches determining whether the stripe contains unused storage space wherein old data resides, whereas the disputed limitation requires old 4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2014). Appeal 2019-003976 Application 12/763,003 6 data residing in a stull stripe in the memory contains no unused space. Id. at 8 (citing Neufeld Fig. 5). In particular, Appellant argues that Neufeld teaches reading old data from memory prior to computing the new parity data, which is subsequently written in the partial stripe of new data. Id. at 8– 9. According to Appellant, Neufeld at best teaches writing dummy data to fill unused space after new parity data has already been computed from old data for the partial stripe of updated data. Id. at 9–10. Consequently, Appellant argues that the combination of Santeler and Neufeld would not have reasonably taught or suggested the disputed limitations of claims 1, 13, and 21. Id. at 10. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error because they are tantamount to attacks against the references’ teachings individually, and not as the combination proposed by the Examiner. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections are based on combined teachings of the references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). As a preliminary matter, we note the disputed claim limitation requires computing new parity data for a partial stripe using updated user data in a buffer (as opposed to user old data from memory) to thereby update old user data in full stripes contained in memory. The Examiner relies upon Santeler for its teaching of a memory module having stored in full stripes user data and parity data. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Santeler ¶¶ 29–31, 36, 37). The Examiner further relies upon Santeler for its teaching of a buffer logic computing new parity data in partial stripes, and writing new data in full stripes without retrieving old data from memory. Id. at 3 (citing Santeler Appeal 2019-003976 Application 12/763,003 7 ¶ 51). Additionally, the Examiner relies upon Neufeld for its teaching of performing a partial write operation without reading old data during which unused space will not be filled. Id. (citing Neufeld 3:45–52); Ans. 3 (citing Neufeld 10:3–15). Although the Examiner also finds that Santeler teaches calculating partial strip parity using old data, we determine that this teaching to be cumulative. Id.5 We find nonetheless that the combination of the cited teachings of Santeler and Neufeld is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than what one would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Therefore, the ordinarily skilled artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” would have been able to fit the teachings of the cited references together like pieces of a puzzle to predictably achieve a buffer logic performing a partial stripe operation and computing new parity data using the updated data stored in a buffer without using old data from full stripes contained in memory and thereby updating user data in memory. Because Appellant has solely addressed Neufeld’s teachings without addressing the merits of Santeler’s teachings, Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the proposed modification would have been within the capabilities of the ordinarily skilled artisan. See 5 Because we have modified the Examiner’s proposed combination of Santeler and Neufeld, we designate our affirmance of the Examiner rejection as a new ground of rejection. Appeal 2019-003976 Application 12/763,003 8 Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Consequently, we are satisfied that, on this record, that the combination of Santeler and Neufeld would have taught or at least suggested updating user data stored in full stripes contained in memory by computing new parity data for a partial stripe of the updated data stored in a buffer without using old data from memory. Ans. 4–6. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 13, and 21 over the combined teachings of Santeler and Neufeld. Regarding the rejection of claims 2–4, 7–12, 14–16, 18, and 19, Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for the patentability of claims 1, 13, and 21. As such, claims 2–4, 7–12, 14–16, 18, and 19 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). VI. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4, 7–16, 18, 19, and 21. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that, “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid termination of proceedings (37 C.F.R. § 1.197 (b)) as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. . . . Appeal 2019-003976 Application 12/763,003 9 (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . . VII. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1–4, 7–16, 18, 19, 21 103 Santeler, Neufeld 1–4, 7–16, 18, 19, 21 1–4, 7–16, 18, 19, 21 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)