Pure Storage, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 15, 2021

2020000650 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2021)

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.
14/706,760 05/07/2015 John Hayes P70479 2880US.1 8236
120626 7590 04/15/2021
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP/Pure Storage
Attn: IP Docketing
PO Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
BECHTOLD, MICHELLE TAEUBER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2183
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2021 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):
ipdocketing@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN HAYES and PAR BOTES
____________

Appeal 2020- 000650
Application 14/706,760
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.

PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–20, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Pure Storage, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000650
Application 14/706,760

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant states that the disclosed and claimed invention provides a
plurality of storage nodes communicating as a storage cluster. Appeal Br. 1
(citing Claim 1).2 A storage cluster stores user data originating from sources
external to the storage cluster and distributes user data across storage nodes
housed within a chassis, using erasure coding and redundant copies of
metadata. Spec. ¶ 16. Erasure coding refers to a method of data protection
or reconstruction in which data is stored across a set of different locations,
such as disks, storage nodes or geographic locations. Id. Data is laid out or
distributed across multiple storage nodes in data fragments or stripes that
support data recovery. Id. According to the Specification, this architecture
“allows a storage node in the cluster to fail, with the system remaining
operational, since the data can be reconstructed from other storage nodes and
thus remain available for input and output operations.” Id.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A plurality of storage nodes communicating as a storage
cluster, comprising:
each of the plurality of storage nodes having nonvolatile
solid-state memory, the plurality of storage nodes configured to
stripe data segments across the nonvolatile solid state-memory of
the plurality of storage nodes, with each data segment associated
with an authority that controls how the data stripe is stored and

2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Oct. 1, 2018 (“Final
Act.”); Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed Apr. 30, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer mailed Aug. 1, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the original
Specification filed May 7, 2015 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2020-000650
Application 14/706,760

3
assists in determining which type of erasure coding scheme is
applied to the data stripe, wherein storage nodes of the plurality
of storage nodes are assigned to respective arrays of a plurality
of logical arrays;
at least one storage node of the plurality of storage nodes
designated as able to be removed from one of the plurality of
logical arrays; and
at least one storage node of the plurality of storage nodes
designated as prevented from being removed from one of the
plurality of logical arrays.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.).
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ludwig et al. (US 2006/0206662 A1; published Sept. 14,
2006) (“Ludwig”), Einkauf et al. (US 2016/0323377 A1; published Nov. 3,
2016) (“Einkauf”), and Kiselev et al. (US 9,021,296 B1; issued Apr. 28,
2015) (“Kiselev”). Final Act. 2–20.
ANALYSIS
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the dispositive
issue before us is whether the combined disclosures of Ludwig, Einkauf, and
Kiselev teach or suggest “an authority that . . . assists in determining which
type of erasure coding scheme is applied to the data stripe” (“the disputed
limitation”), as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15.
Examiner’s Findings, and Appellant’s Arguments
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that “Ludwig in view
of Einkauf does not explicitly disclose: An authority assists in determining
which type of erasure coding scheme is applied to the stripe.” Final Act. 4
(emphases omitted). The Examiner also finds, however, that Kiselev teaches
this limitation because “Kiselev teaches a storage configuration map that is
Appeal 2020-000650
Application 14/706,760

4
utilized to determine a layout for the storage of data across a cluster of
nodes. The map is utilized to apply an erasure coding method to determine
the placement of chunks of data in the storage system.” Id. at 4–5 (citing
Kiselev 7:60–8:55).
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues the Examiner has erred by
misconstruing the term “authority” and mischaracterizing Kiselev. Appeal
Br. 4–7. In particular, Appellant argues that based on the Specification, an
“authority” in the various embodiments of a storage cluster plays an active
role in controlling how data stripes are stored and determining which type of
erasure coding scheme is applied to the stripes. Id. at 5 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 23–
27, 31, 34–35). Regarding Kiselev, Appellant argues that Kiselev teaches
chunks of data are erasure-coded, and stored across nodes for reliability
using the storage configuration map 70, 71. Id. at 6 (citing Kiselev 8:12–
55). Appellant also argues:
However, Kis[e]lev is silent as to what determines the type of
erasure coding, or where and how the type of erasure coding is
determined, and falls short of disclosing that the storage
configuration map 70, 71 is playing an active role in determining
which type of erasure coding is applied to a data stripe.

Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds that the paragraphs of the
Specification cited Appellant to show an “authority” performing an active
role “in fact appear to be describing the authority as playing a much more
passive role.” Ans. 5 (citing Spec. ¶ 23). Regarding Kiselev, the Examiner
finds, as “Appellant noted”:
Kiselev teaches a storage system in which an erasure coding
scheme may be employed [Col 7[:] line 67–Col 8[:] line 5].
Kiselev further discloses a storage map that is used for
Appeal 2020-000650
Application 14/706,760

5
“determining a layout for distributed storage of the data on the
storage system across the cluster of nodes” [Col 8[:] [l]ines 12–
15]. The data objects can be erasure coded across the nodes for
reliability. [Col 8[:] [l]ines 35–55].

Id. at 7. Thus, the Examiner also finds that Kiselev teaches the disputed
limitation because:
As the data is erasure coded across the nodes and the storage map
indicates where the erasure coded data is stored, this
information/control of where the data is stored (as disclosed by
the storage map) assists in determining the erasure coding
scheme being used in the system.

Id.
Applicable Law
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (alteration in
original)). The Examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is by a
preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed.
Cir. 1985) (“[P]reponderance of the evidence is the standard that must be
met by the PTO in making rejections.”). “A rejection based on section 103
clearly must rest on a factual basis.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017
(CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the
factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded
assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual
basis.” Id.
Appeal 2020-000650
Application 14/706,760

6
Claims 1–203
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
erred. In regard to interpretation of the term “authority,” Appellant has not
proposed a specific construction, but argues that “authority” should be
construed to require an “active role” in determining which type of erasure
coding scheme is applied to the data stripe. Appeal Br. 5. However,
Appellant does not specifically describe, or explain the meaning of, such an
“active role.” As the Examiner notes, the disputed limitation of claim 1
recites an “authority” that “assists” in determining the type of erasure
coding. Ans. 6. The Examiner also notes that paragraph 23 of the
Specification states that “[a]uthorities 168 control how and where data is
stored in the non-volatile solid state storages 152 . . . . This control assists in
determining which type of erasure coding scheme is applied to the data.”
(Emphasis added.) We give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, we conclude, as does the Examiner, that
“assisting” in determining which type of erasure coding scheme is applied to
the data does not require an “active role,” in which the authority itself is
determining the erasure coding scheme, as Appellant appears to argue, but
only that the authority has to assist in some way to determine the type of
erasure coding applied to the data stripe. See id.
Regarding Kiselev, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument
that Kiselev is silent as to what determines the type of erasure coding, or

3 Appellant argues claims 1–20 together, focusing on claim 1. Appeal Br.
4–7. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative, and the remaining
claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Appeal 2020-000650
Application 14/706,760

7
where and how the type of erasure coding is determined, and fails to disclose
that “the storage configuration map 70, 71 is playing an active role in
determining which type of erasure coding is applied to a data stripe.”
Appeal Br. 6. First, this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the
disputed limitation of claim 1 because, as discussed above, the disputed
limitation requires an “authority” that “assists” in determining the type of
erasure coding applied to the data, rather than “playing an active role in
determining which type of erasure coding is applied.” Id.; see In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the
outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the
claims.”).4
Second, as stated supra, Appellant acknowledges that Kiselev teaches
chunks of data are erasure-coded, and stored across nodes for reliability
using the storage configuration map 70, 71. Appeal Br. 5 (citing Kiselev
8:12–55). The Examiner also finds, and we agree, that Kiselev teaches “a
storage map that controls where the data is stored in the system (determining
a layout of the data).” Ans. 7 (citing Kiselev, 8:12–15, 8:35–55). Thus, as
the Examiner finds, we find, consistent with paragraph 23 of the
Specification, that Kiselev teaches the disputed limitation because Kiselev’s
storage map controls where the erasure coded data is stored and, therefore,
“assists in determining the erasure coding scheme being used in the system.”
Id.
Accordingly, we find the Examiner has shown that the combination of
Ludwig, Einkauf, and Kiselev teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of

4 We also note that claim 1 does not recite or require “how the type of
erasure coding is determined,” as Appellant argues. See Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2020-000650
Application 14/706,760

8
claim 1 by a preponderance of the evidence. See Caveney, 761 F.2d at 674.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15, and
dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20, for obviousness under § 103.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Ludwig, Einkauf,
Kiselev
1–20
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