throbber
IB916247596US
`11Express Mai l 11 Label Number
`Date of Deposit November<j. 1993
`
`I hereby certify that this paper is being
`deposited with the United States Postal
`Service 11 Express Mail Post Office to
`Addressee" Service under 37 C.F.R. §1.10 on
`the date indicated above and is addressed to
`the Conmissioner of Patents and Trademarks,
`Washington, D. C.
`20231.
`
`Andrew Freeman
`<T.yped o!J printed nam~, of person mailing)
`U vv(U i.e,t;
`--:/ /IJ! . .Vl1·1,-rj,.,,
`(Signature of person mailing)
`·
`
`5
`
`which includes a mass storage device, preferably non-mechanical, and more
`
`particularly to an information storage system which enables relatively high
`
`speed data transfer to and from a mass storage device without the software
`
`overhead and resulting increased transfer time of known disk emulator
`
`pj~,(
`
`i
`,' ; '"
`
`''.·1~
`
`10
`
`systems and which enables multiple hosts, connected to a common bus, to
`
`read and write to the mass storage device independently in real time on a first
`
`come basis.
`
`2. Description of the Prior Art
`
`15
`
`various information storage system applications. Such mass storage devices
`
`Mass storage devices are known to be used for storing data in
`
`are typically mechanical devices, such as hard disks and floppy disks. In a
`
`typical system, predetermined blocks or sectors of data are transferred
`
`between the mass storage device and the main memory under the control of a
`
`central processing unit (CPU) or a direct m~~ccess (DMA) controller.
`
`I.A.
`
`20
`
`There are several problems whie& such known mechanical
`1
`storage devices. First, data is transferred to and from the disks in a serial
`
`fashion and stored sequentially making such devices sequential access
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 1
`
`

`

`~ J 1
`
`-235-
`
`WECL
`
`- 1.
`
`An information storage system adapted to be
`
`connected to at least
`
`o or more hosts by way o
`
`mmon bus comprising:
`
`a m
`
`storage· device;
`
`5
`
`device to enable said two or more hos
`
`means for anaging the
`
`the mass storage
`to read a d write to said mass
`
`storage device on a first come basis withou onflict.
`
`/
`,, /
`« 1~
`
`!
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 2
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Applicants:
`
`Conner et al.
`
`Serial No.:
`
`08/151,063
`
`Filed:
`
`For:
`
`November 9, 1993
`
`HIGH SPEED REAL-TIME
`CROSS SYSTEM INFORMATION
`STORAGE SYSTEM
`
`Examiner:
`
`David L. Robertson
`
`Attorney
`Docket No.:
`
`59443
`
`AMENDMENT A
`
`Art Unit:
`
`2312
`
`I hereby cert~fy that this paper is
`being deposited with the United S1ates Postal
`Service as first class mail in an envelope
`addressed to: Assistant Commissioner for
`Patent , Wash"
`on, D.C.
`31, on I i
`~ t. 1
`Date
`
`istration No. ·:,='\ , \')1
`Attorney for Apphca~t (s)
`
`Assistant Commissioner for Patents
`Washington, D.C.
`20231
`
`Sir:
`
`In response to the Office Action
`
`applicants respond as follows:
`
`In the Specification:
`
`line 1, please amend the title to read -loIREC;-
`Page 1,
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · · - - - · · · · · · · · - · . r - - - -~
`ACCESS SOLID STATE CROSS sysTEM INFORMATION STORAGE SY_s_T_E_M_-__ -_,_· -----(cid:173)
`\ LL:--------------
`line 29:·lete "whi~h" and insert --with--.
`line ye1ete "becomes" and insert --become--;
`
`Page 2,
`
`- . I
`
`line / f lOM e "keya" and
`
`incere
`
`--doea keya
`
`(keys l - - .
`
`Page 3, line 1, ye1ete "only";
`line ~ter "performance", insert --only--.
`
`Page 4, line 8, delete "the" and insert --an average--.
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 3
`
`

`

`Page 12, line 3, delete •systems 100" and insert --~ystems
`--------
`·--------
`lOOJP,
`lOOSF,
`lOOCH--·-;
`lOOHK,
`------·------
`············-····-----
`~~.,----:-7:-=:----~-~
`line 3, delete "hosts 104" and insert -1hosts 104HK,
`
`f23
`
`104JP, 104SF, 104CH;
`
`CHICAGO HOSTS) 104CH·r-,-
`
`line 9, delete "104 • and insert
`
`....... ·- -·---··· --------
`- - (i.e., LOCAL
`
`?'
`line,.,10,
`
`re~nces
`
`replace the references
`
`11 100 11
`
`,
`
`11 106 11 and
`
`--lOOCH--,
`
`--106CH--,
`
`and
`
`--104CH--,
`
`11104 ti
`
`by
`
`the
`
`respectively;
`
`line 11, replace the references "106" and ·~
`. 0 ~ff{jr1
`
`and "103" by
`
`the references
`
`the references
`
`--106CH--, and ---~--, respectively;
`line l~lace the references "100"
`--lOOCH~ and --103CH--, respectively;
`line l~eplace the references "102" and "106" by
`the references --102CH--~nd --106CH--, respectively;
`/ /
`line )A) replace the references "116" and "106" by
`/
`the references --116CH--, and --106CH--, respectively;
`
`line
`
`"Francisco host 104" and insert --
`
`Francisco host 104SF--;
`
`line 20~elete •remote hosts 104" and insert -(cid:173)
`
`remote hosts 104HK, 104JP--;
`
`.
`
`line 2~-~ete "optic interfaces 122 and 124" and
`
`insert --optic interfaces 122HK, 122JP, 122SF and 124HK, 124JP, 124
`"'
`
`SF--.
`
`14, line 2~-~te "form" and insert --from--.
`
`Page
`
`-2-
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 4
`
`

`

`Page 17, pne 15, delete "Oracle by Oracle Corporation"
`
`insert --standard query langqage (SQL)--;
`
`insert the parenthetica~;J-l;leginning at page 74)--.
`
`lines <32, delete "included as Appendix A" and
`
`Page 18, line 16,. · delete "is attached as Appendix B" and
`/"'
`insert --begins at page-179-~-
`
`,,
`
`line
`
`"is attached as Appendix C" and
`
`insert --begins at page 196--<
`
`Page '°, 1 ine ~ "aocual" ineore Che wood - -word - - ;
`
`line 5 / € r "size" insert --in words--;
`
`line 12, d~te "16" and insert --12--;
`l~ne,J.-7-e'lete "64,000" and insert --4,000--;
`l~ :t5, delete "256" and insert --17--.
`Page 21, tine 1, delete "GB_RML DO" and insert --RML DO--.
`
`Page 22, line 10, delete "that the system has hung up" and
`··----------·---------·
`system has run out of locks (i.e., that the system
`
`--,,---i-· n_s_e:_.:.-=Jthat the
`(J{ has hung up)A/
`- - -
`
`,
`line 2
`
`-----·----·-·-·
`11 GB RD D1 11 and insert --RD Dl--.
`
`Page 2~25, delete "GB RK D2 11 and insert --RK D2--.
`
`Page 2
`
`, line 21, delete "GB RA D3 11 and insert --RA D3--.
`
`In the claims:
`
`Please insert additional claims 2-6 as follows:
`
`1
`
`2 .
`
`rmation storage system as in cla · m 1 wherein the
`
`means for
`
`further
`
`comprises a write new chain command
`
`-3-
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 5
`
`

`

`1 more hosts
`
`reserving and calculating pointer:;; for dynamically
`
`2 calculating
`
`reserving at least a portion of the mass storage
`
`3 device.
`
`1
`
`3 .
`
`Th
`
`information storage system as in claim 1 wherein the
`
`2 means for managing the resources of the mass storage device further
`
`4 more hosts for lockin at least a portion of the mass storage device
`
`5 against write access by a second host of the two or more hosts.
`
`1
`
`1
`
`4.
`
`The inform tion storage system as in claim 1 wherein the
`
`means for managing the re ources of the mass storage device further
`
`comprises a write modify un
`
`used
`
`y the
`
`irst host for
`
`unlocking the portion of the m ss storage evice.
`
`5.
`
`The information st
`
`2 means for managing the resources
`
`the mass storage device further
`
`3 comprises a read data command used
`
`the second host of:_:t~h~_r=;i__~/
`
`4 more hosts for reading the portion of
`
`e device lo ed by
`
`5
`
`1
`
`the first host.
`
`6.
`
`The information storage sy
`
`in claim 3 further
`
`2 comprising a device driver within each
`
`the two or more hosts.
`
`In the abstract:
`
`(
`
`On page 236, line 15, at the end of the sentence, please
`
`delete the remainder of the paragraph.
`
`-4-
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 6
`
`

`

`R E M A R K S
`
`It is noted that a single claim (claim 1) is pending in this
`
`application. The claim has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
`
`and second paragraphs.
`
`The claim has also been rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Guyette et al. (U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,564,903). The claim has also been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`as being anticipated by Maeda (U.S. Patent No. 4,621,318). The claim
`
`has further been rejected u::ider 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
`
`by Capozzi et al.
`
`(U.S. Patent No. 4,084,231)
`
`The Examiner has
`
`further objected to the specification.
`
`The Examiner has objected to the title of the invention.
`
`In
`
`specific the Examiner asserts that the title is not descriptive.
`
`In
`
`response the title has been amended to be consistent with the claim.
`
`The Examiner has objected to the length of the Abstract.
`
`Pursuant to the amendment, the Abstract has been shortened.
`
`The Examiner has objected to the drawings.
`
`In specific, the
`
`Examiner asserts on FIG. 1 that SCSI bus 106 is not connected to
`
`anything. Pursuant to the amendment, a proposed drawing correction has
`
`been submitted.
`
`The claim has been rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, first
`
`paragraph.
`
`In specific the Examiner asserts that FIGS. 7-11, 13, 15-
`
`18, 20, 22, and 26 are virtually identical. A review of FIGS. 7-30, on
`
`the other hand, reveal that the differences in FIGS. 7-30 define the
`
`structures of the command codes of an embodiment of the invention. For
`
`example, FIG. 7 reveals that the operational code (op code) of the READ
`
`MODIFY LOCK command is defined by the characters "RML DO" located in
`
`-5-
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 7
`
`

`

`.
`the first byte of the illustrated command structure of FIG. 7. The RML
`
`DO command code is described in the specification beginning at page 20,
`
`line 19 to page 22, line 21.
`
`As shown in FIG. 7, a command address of the RML DO op code
`
`occupies bytes 2-6 and a data block size is identified in bytes 7, 8,
`
`and 9. Bytes 9 and 10 describe how many blocks of data are affected by
`
`the RML DO command. A flow chart of the operations of FIG. 7 is shown
`
`in FIG. 39.
`
`Likewise, FIG. 8 reveals that the op code of the READ DATA
`
`command can be identified by the op code "RD Dl" in the first byte of
`
`the command.
`
`The RD Dl command code is fully explained on page 22,
`
`line 22 to page 23, line 18 of the specification.
`
`FIG. 9 defines the op code for READ KEYS and is described
`
`beginning at page 23, line 20 to page 24, line 15.
`
`FIG. 10 defines
`
`READ AUDIT and is described beginning on page 24, line 15 to page 25,
`
`line 10. FIG. 11 defines READ SWAP and is described beginning on page
`
`25, line 11 to page 26, line 10.
`
`FIG. 12 defines READ PAD and is
`
`described beginning on page 26, line 11 to page 27, line 6. FIG. 13
`
`defines READ ANY and is described beginning on page 26, line 7 to page
`
`28, line 4. FIG. 14 defines PAD UNLOCK and is described beginning on
`
`page 28, line 5 to page 29, line 14.
`
`FIG. 15 defines READ KEYS LOCK
`
`and is described beginning on page 29, line 15 to page 30, line 19.
`
`FIG. 16 defines WRITE MODIFY UNLOCK and is described beginning on page
`
`30, line 20 to page 32, line 7.
`
`FIG. 17 defines WRITE DATA and is
`
`described beginning on page 32, line 8 to page 33, line 7.
`
`FIG. 18
`
`defines WRITE KEYS and is described beginning on page 33, line 8 to
`
`-6-
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 8
`
`

`

`page 34,
`
`line 8.
`
`FIG. 19 defines WRITE AUDIT and is described
`
`beginning on page 34, line 9 to page 35,
`
`line 1 7.
`
`FIG. 2 O defines
`
`WRITE SWAP and is described beginning on page 35, line 18 to page 36,
`
`line 18. FIG. 21 defines WRITE PAD and is described beginning on page
`
`36, line 18 to page 37, line 18.
`
`FIG. 22 defines WRITE ANY and is
`
`described beginning on page 37, line 19 to page 38, line 18. FIG. 23
`
`defines WRITE PAD LOCK and is described beginning on page 38, line 19
`
`to page 39, line 26. FIG. 24 defines WRITE NEW CHAIN and is described
`
`beginning on page 39, line 27 to page 42, line 29.
`
`FIG. 25 defines
`
`WRITE NEW CHAIN RETURN DATA AND KEY ADDRESS and is described beginning
`
`on page 39, line 27 to page 42, line 29.
`
`FIG. 26 defines WRITE NEW
`
`KEYS and is described beginning on page 43, line 1 to page 44, line 16.
`
`FIG. 27 defines UNLOCK ADDRESS and is described beginning on page 44,
`
`line 17 to page 45, line 17. FIG. 28 defines PAD UNLOCK ADDRESS and is
`
`described beginning on page 45, line 18 to page 46, line 17. FIG. 29
`
`defines SET MASTER and is described beginning on page 46, line 18 to
`
`page 47,
`
`line 27.
`
`FIG. 30 defines NEW DATA BASE and is described
`
`beginning on page 47, line 28 to page 50, line 27.
`
`FIGS.
`
`7-30 def~ne salient structural
`
`features of
`
`the
`
`invention.
`
`The command structures shown in FIGS. 7-30,
`
`in fact,
`
`provide the structure by which the hosts 104 interact with the mass
`
`storage device 102.
`
`In providing a means by which the hosts 104
`
`interact with the mass storage device 102, the command structures of
`
`FIGS. 7-30 provide a portion of the means for managing the resources of
`
`the mass storage device to enable the two or more hosts to read and
`
`-7-
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 9
`
`

`

`write
`
`to
`
`the mass storage device of a first come basis without
`
`conflict.
`
`Since
`
`the details of FIGS. 7-30 provide
`
`the structure
`
`necessary to define the interaction between the hosts and mass storage
`
`device, a drawing showing the structure of each command is necessary to
`
`provide the precise format of each command.
`
`Even assuming arguendo
`
`that a routineer would be able to figure out the command structures
`
`without the benefit of FIGS. 7-30 a drawing of each command structure
`
`would still be required in support of the descriptions found within the
`
`specification. A drawing would be required in that "Any structural
`
`detail that is of sufficient importance to be described should be shown
`
`in the drawings''
`
`(Ex Parte Good, 1911 C.D. 43; 164 0.G. 739).
`
`The Examiner has recited a number of grammatical and other
`
`errors. Pursuant to this amendment the errors have been corrected.
`
`The Examiner next asserts relative to page 13, line 12 that
`
`the referenced material "seems to be excessive for an understanding of
`
`the invention, and should thus be cancelled''. A review of page 13,
`
`line 12 reveals a number of references, none of which are viewed as
`
`essential material.
`
`The referenced material deals with various aspects of large
`
`computer systems
`
`(networks) which are
`
`the subject matter of
`
`the
`
`invention. Large computer systems, as is well known to those of skill
`
`in the art, have many components, each having its own descriptive
`
`literature. The specification incorporates references to background
`
`information that are descriptive of the structures that are used under
`
`the embodiment. It is believed that the references cited are necessary
`
`-8-
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 10
`
`

`

`for an adequate description of the structures that within the scope of
`
`the invention. Since it is believed that each reference is rationally
`
`related to the scope and content of the invention, it is not believed
`
`necessary or appropriate to delete the cited references.
`
`The Examiner next asserts relative to page 20, lines 2-3 that
`
`"40 bit actual addressing implies 240
`
`locations which is only 1024
`
`gigabytes, or 1 terabyte".
`
`The specification, on the other hand,
`
`refers to word word addressing (page 20, line 1). Word word addressing
`
`is different than bit addressing and is well known to provide a larger
`
`addressing capability than bit addressing.
`
`A 40 bit word address
`
`provides 4 terabytes of addressing capability.
`
`The Examiner next asserts relative to page 22 that "line 30-
`
`page 23, line 9, lines are redundant with page 21, lines 3-13 and serve
`
`to confuse and unduly burden the reader". A review of the appropriate
`
`sections, on the other hand, reveals that page 22, line 29 to page 23,
`
`line 9 describes an addressing structure for the READ DATA command (RD
`
`Dl) while page 21, lines 3-13 describes an addressing structure for a
`
`READ MODIFY LOCK command (RML DO)
`
`Since the addressing structures are
`
`drawn to two different comr,1ands, the descriptions are not redundant.
`
`The Examiner next asserts relative to page 23 that "Line 26-
`
`page 24, line 5 are redundant with page 21, lines 3-13 and serve to
`
`confuse and unduly burden the reader, etc.". Again, it is noted that
`
`page 23, line 26 to page 24, line 5 is drawn to an addressing structure
`
`of a READ KEY command (RK D2) while page 21, lines 3-13 is drawn to a
`
`READ MODIFY LOCK command (RML DO) . Since the descriptions are drawn to
`
`-9-
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 11
`
`

`

`the addressing structures of two different commands it can hardly be
`
`said that the descriptions are redundant.
`
`The Examiner next asserts that "pages 74-234, which appear to
`
`be a computer listing, appear to have little or nothing to do with the
`
`claimed invention". The Examiner is referred to page 17, line 28 to
`
`page 18, line 18 (as amended) which clearly establishes the role of the
`
`software in providing a means for managing the resources of the mass
`
`storage device to enable the two or more hosts to read and write to the
`
`mass storage device on a first come basis without conflict.
`
`The Examiner next asserts that "the abstract, figures and
`
`specification must be pared down to no more than the figures and
`
`portions of the abstract and specification that discuss managing the
`
`storage device to enable two or more hosts to have read and write
`
`access to the storage device on a first come basis without conflict .
`
`This should be, in the estimate of the examiner, no more than four
`
`(4) pages tops (including the claims)". It is noted that the described
`
`embodiment includes a number of elements. Page 13, line 1 to page 15,
`
`line 20 describes the hardware necessary for practicing an embodiment
`
`of the invention. Page 15, line 21 to page 17, line 3 describes memory
`
`mapping used in a portion of the mass storage device for reconstruction
`
`of information under the embodiment. Page 17, line 4 to page 18, line
`
`30 describes the software architecture for practicing the embodiment.
`
`Page 19, line 1 to page 58, line 30 describes command structures of the
`
`software structure of the embodiment. Page 59, line 1 to page 66, line
`
`3 describes the device driver of the hosts 104 under the embodiment.
`
`Page 66 line 4 to page 70, line 17 describes the SCSI adapter software
`
`-10-
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 12
`
`

`

`of the embodiment.
`
`Page 70,
`
`line 18 to page 73,
`
`line 21 is the
`
`information operating system. Pages 74-234 provide source code for the
`
`embodiment.
`
`It is also noted that
`
`the Examiner may have failed to
`
`appreciate that a number of different commands have been provided which
`
`enhance the functionality of the embodiment (see Examiner's statement
`
`on page 3 of the February 13, 1995 Office Action stating that FIGS. 7-
`
`30 are virtually identical and must be consolidated). The Examiner has
`
`also stated (pages 6 and 7 of the February 13, 1995 Office Action) that
`
`the description of addressing structures used in the different commands
`
`are redundant, when in fact each command must have its own addressing
`
`structure, based upon the function served by the command.
`
`The structures described in the applicant's specification
`
`provide a unique method of allowing at least two or more hosts to read
`
`and write to a mass storage device on a first come basis without
`
`conflict.
`
`The hardware and software requirements described in the
`
`specification provide a single integrated means for managing
`
`the
`
`resources of the mass storage device to enable such simultaneous access
`
`by the two or more hosts.
`
`The Examiner next asserts that "The specification fails to
`
`provide an adequate written description of the claimed invention since
`
`there is no showing of the specifics of the various claimed hosts are
`
`connected to the claimed storage device".
`
`In response, proposed
`
`corrections to FIG. 1 have been provided showing the specifics of
`
`connection between the SCSI bus 106 and
`
`the SCSI interfaces 114.
`
`Further information on the specifics of interconnections of the hosts
`
`-11-
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 13
`
`

`

`to the claimed storage device may be found in the references cited on
`
`page 13-14 of the applicants' specification.
`
`The Examiner next asserts that "The specification fails to
`
`provide an adequate written description of the claimed invention since
`
`there is no showing of the specifics of how the claimed hosts are .
`
`. enabled to access the storage device without conflict as claimed''·
`
`In response the Examiner is referred to the description of the READ
`
`MODIFY LOCK command (page 20, line 19 to page 22, line 21) and to FIG.
`
`39. As described, whenever a particular block of memory is accessed by
`
`a first host 104,
`
`''the record or records to be read is locked so that
`
`no other host 104 on the system can access that storage space• (page
`
`20, lines 25-27). Locking the record to be read enables the first host
`
`104 to access the storage device without conflict.
`
`The Examiner next asserts that ''The specification fails to
`
`provide an adequate written description of .
`
`what applicants mean
`
`by the claimed terminology 'first come basis'•. It is noted, ·however,
`
`that terms are generally to be given their normal everyday meanings.
`
`Under a normal construction, the term "first come basis" means whoever
`
`gets there first. Since that meaning has not been displaced by another
`
`definition within the specification,
`
`the normal definition must be
`
`applied and there can be no ambiguity about the meaning of the term
`
`"first come basis''·
`
`The Examiner next asserts that "The only figure that shows
`
`anything remotely similar to what is claimed is figure 3
`
`Thus,
`
`whatever applicants' invention may be, it is not shown in the figures
`
`nor described in the specification".
`
`It is noted however that the
`
`-12-
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 14
`
`

`

`applicants' claimed
`
`invention
`
`includes,
`
`inter alia,
`
`a means for
`
`managing the resources of the mass storage device to enable said two or
`
`more hosts to read and write to said mass storage device without
`
`conflict.
`
`The claimed means includes those means disclosed in the
`
`applicants' specification and equivalents. Such means include, inter
`
`alia, the READ MODIFY LOCK and the WRITE MODIFY UNLOCK commands as well
`
`as the other structural elements enabling such means. Since the means
`
`are fully described in the specification there can be no serious
`
`assertion of non-enablement. Also since the described means would be
`
`clearly understood by a person of skill in the art there can also be no
`
`serious assertion that the best mode of practicing the invention has
`
`not been made apparent.
`
`The claim has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second
`
`paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out
`
`and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as the
`
`invention.
`
`In specific the Examiner asserts that "It is not clear what
`
`is meant by the phrase 'read and write to said mass storage device'
`
`(lines 5-6)
`
`. It is not clear if both hosts must read and write or
`
`if they are intended to be in the alternative (e.g., one must write
`
`while the other must read)''.
`
`What is clear is that the Examiner reads much more into the
`
`claim than what the claim contains. Nowhere within the claim does the
`
`word •must• appear. Since the word "must" does not appear within the
`
`claim, there is no requirement that reading and writing must occur
`
`simultaneously.
`
`-13-
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 15
`
`

`

`There is also no limitation within the claim that only one
`
`host read at a
`
`time.
`
`The term "read", in fact, must be given the
`
`meaning provided in the specification.
`
`The specification clearly
`
`states (page 19, lines 16-25) that only one host may write to a space
`
`while any other host may read the space. Since the terms are clearly
`
`defined there can be no conflict as to what the terms "read" and
`
`"write" mean in the claims.
`
`What does appear in the claim is that whatever reading and
`
`writing occurs is without conflict between the two or more hosts.
`
`Since
`
`the
`
`term "conflict"
`
`is used in conjunction with the
`
`terms
`
`"reading" and "writing",
`
`the only conflict that can be considered
`
`relevant under the claim is a conflict associated with reading and
`
`writing. Since only one host at a time is allowed to write at a time
`
`there can be no conflict among the hosts with respect to writing to the
`
`mass storage device. Also since any other host may read the area where
`
`another host is writing, there can be no conflict between either the
`
`reading hosts or between the writing host and reading hosts, nor can
`
`there be any ambiguity as
`
`to
`
`the meaning of
`
`the
`
`term "without
`
`conflict".
`
`The claim has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Guyette et al., Maeda, and Capozzi et al.
`
`It is noted
`
`at the outset that Guyette et al., Maeda, and Capozzi et al. each
`
`describe a multiprocessor system. A multiprocessor system, as such
`
`term is generally understood in the art, is generally descriptive of a
`
`single functional entity (e.g., a host)
`
`The processors of
`
`the
`
`multiprocessor system generally operate cooperatively
`
`towards
`
`the
`
`-14-
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 16
`
`

`

`functional goal of the single functional entity. The applicants, on
`
`the other hand, claim an information storage system adapted to be
`
`connected to at least two or more hosts that, by their very nature, are
`
`not functionally compatible. Since Guyette et al., Maeda and Capozzi
`
`et al. are each drawn to different subject matter, each fails as
`
`anticipatory references.
`
`Even assuming arguendo that Guyette et al., Maeda, or Capozzi
`
`et al. were drawn to two or more hosts (which they are not), they still
`
`fail as anticipatory references. They each fail for reasons discussed
`
`below.
`
`Guyette et al. is drawn to a virtual machine
`
`(VM) host that
`
`provides access to a number of users (i.e., terminals) by simulating
`
`the functioning of a number of
`
`independent data processors.
`
`The
`
`Examiner asserts that the Guyette et al. "main storage device (storage
`
`device) is partitioned between the processors (see fig. 3) allowing
`
`access on a first come basis without conflict''.
`
`While Guyette et al. does partition memory among processors,
`
`the partitioning of memory is neither the subject of applicants' claim,
`
`or the
`
`invention described in applicants' specification.
`
`Memory
`
`partitioning is a process which is generally static in nature and is
`
`typically performed before execution of an application. Reading and
`
`writing to an unspecified address of a mass storage device on a first
`
`come basis without conflict is entirely different.
`
`Partitioning memory is a process wherein a memory is divided
`
`as to user and is maintained during use.
`
`Since the computers of
`
`Guyette et al. are assigned to different partitioned memory blocks
`
`-15-
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 17
`
`

`

`there is no conflict among the computers. However, division of the
`
`memory is hardly on a first come basis.
`
`Di vision,
`
`in fact,
`
`is
`
`typically performed manually by a system administrator and is certainly
`
`not performed on a first come basis.
`
`Since Guyette et al. uses
`
`partitioned memory to avoid conflict, it cannot fairly be said to
`
`function on a first come basis and therefore fails as an anticipatory
`
`reference to the applicants' invention.
`
`The claim has also been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
`
`being anticipated by Maeda. The Examiner, however, does not attempt to
`
`justify the rejection other than through the cryptic statement that
`
`''the system has a protocol to control access so that conflicts do not
`
`arise 11
`
`•
`
`A
`
`review of Maeda,
`
`however,
`
`reveals
`
`that
`
`the Maeda
`
`multiprocessors function cooperatively to form a larger data processing
`
`entity. No indication is provided as to the function of the larger
`
`processing entity, but it is assumed
`
`that
`
`the
`
`function of
`
`the
`
`processing entity is consistent with that of a host. Since Maeda, at
`
`best describes a single host,
`
`it also fails as an anticipatory
`
`reference.
`
`The claim has also been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
`
`being anticipated by Capozzi et al. The Examiner asserts that ''under
`
`normal conditions one L2/3 controller handles read requests while the
`
`other L2/3 controller handles write requests, thus allowing read and
`
`write accesses without conflicts•.
`
`A review of Capozzi et al. reveals that Capozzi et al. may
`
`indeed teach of a system where one controller handles read requests
`
`-16-
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 18
`
`

`

`while the other controller handles write requests.
`
`Such controller
`
`systems, in fact, are common within a host and are used to coordinate
`
`I/O activities of the host. Since Capozzi et al. (like Guyette et al.
`
`and Maeda) is also drawn to the functioning of a single host, it also
`
`fails as an anticipatory reference to the applicants' invention.
`
`For the foregoing reasons applicants believe that the subject
`
`application is in a condition for allowance and earnestly solicits an
`
`early notice of allowance. Should the Examiner be of the opinion that
`
`a
`
`telephone conference would expedite prosecution of
`
`the subject
`
`application, he is respectfully requested to call the undersigned at
`
`the below-listed number.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WELSH & KATZ, LTD.
`
`By
`
`~~-~
`
`Jon P. Christensen
`Registration No. 34,137
`
`May 2, 1995
`WELSH & KATZ, LTD.
`135 South LaSalle Street
`Suite 1625
`Chicago, Illinois
`(312) 781-9470
`
`60603
`
`-17-
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 19
`
`

`

`08/555259
`rlf;;rilt
`PATENT(A~fl/~
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`Art Unit:
`
`Applicant:
`
`Conner et al.
`
`2312
`
`Serial No.:
`
`Not Yet Assigned
`
`Filed:
`
`For:
`
`HIGH SPEED REAL-TIME
`CROSS SYSTEM INFORMATION
`STORAGE SYSTEM
`
`Examiner:
`
`Attorney
`Docket No.:
`
`Not Yet Assigned
`
`63764
`
`I hereby cenify that this paper Is
`being deposited with the United Stales Postal
`Seivloe as· Expre~ Mail in an envelope ad·
`dres,sed to: A!Slstant Commissioner for Pat·
`ants, Was.hlngt~J0231, on this date.
`·1/·'1-~
`~,r::;-:..
`Date
`Express Mail Label No.
`E.M 53]3'5.3399 U.S
`
`PRELIMINARY AMENDMENT
`
`Assistant Commissioner for Patents
`Box FWC
`Washington, D.C.
`
`20231
`
`Sir:
`
`(r··~ v/
`
`\r,
`
`'X,~'
`
`In response
`
`to
`
`the Office Action dated August 8, 1995,
`
`applicants respond as follows:
`
`In the Specification:
`On pages 6 and 7 please delete references to FIGS. 8-11, 13-
`
`~
`18, 20-22, 26, and 28.
`Page 22, line 23, after the words "READ DATA", insert --(FIG.
`
`'" and ina~G. , ••.
`11" and ini:f~ --FIG. 7--.
`13" and in~rt --FIG. 7--.
`
`10" and in?eJ'--FIG. 7--.
`
`7) - - .
`
`Page 23, line
`
`24,
`
`Page 24, line
`
`Page 25, line
`
`20,
`
`16,
`
`Page 27, line
`
`12,
`
`delete ' IG.
`
`delet
`
`"FIG.
`
`delete "FIG.
`
`0
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 20
`
`

`

`/
`
`v
`
`15, dele7FIG. 14" and insey-FIG. 12--.
`21, delet-e/'FIG. 15" and i£~srt -FIG. 7--.
`2, deleyIG. 16" and ii/iser
`--FIG. 7--.
`
`Page 28,
`
`line
`
`Page 29,
`
`line
`
`Page 31,
`
`line
`
`Page 32,
`
`Page 33,
`
`l(,,., "'-... 6'ti Page 3 6,
`0 'L-y"'
`~\d~\~~ Page 37,
`\O\! \II
`(FIG. 7) - - .
`
`Page 4 3,
`
`Page 45,
`
`Page 73,
`
`line
`
`line
`
`14, delett/G. 17" and in 'ry --FIG. 7--.
`13, delete "F G. 18" and ins~t --FIG. 7--.
`line 24, delete "FIG. 21" and insei --FIG. 12--.
`
`line 24, dele e "FIG. 22" and i~t --FIG. 7--.
`
`line 2, after "WRITE NEW KEYS com and", insert
`
`line 25, de~:
`
`line 22, de le
`
`"What
`
`is desired to be claimed by a
`
`28" and inert --FIG. 27--.
`
`Letters Patent is:".
`
`In the Claims: ~ ~
`Please de ~without prejudice, claims 1-6.
`
`Please insert new claims 7-27 as follows:
`
`7.
`
`method of providing memory access to a memory mass
`
`storage devic
`
`a plurality of computers, each fu~ctioning under
`
`an independent
`
`rating system, such method comprising the steps
`
`of:
`
`receiving a
`
`ite access request identifying a memory
`
`space from a requesting com
`
`ter of the plurality of computers by
`
`the memory mass storage device;
`
`granting access and rese ving
`
`for the
`
`exclusive use of the requesting compu
`
`to the memory space by any other compu
`
`r
`
`-2-
`
`Unified Patents Inc., Exhibit 1007, pg. 21
`
`

`

`j
`
`computers
`
`computer.
`
`the duration of the access grant to the requesting
`
`8 .
`
`The method
`
`write access request
`
`step of receiving a
`
`step
`
`defining the
`
`access request as a read modify
`
`9~.~---'l~"--Jm~ethod as in claim 7 further comprising the step of
`
`memory size from a
`
`second requesting computer of the plurality of'i:!"O"rrmtlt~
`
`-------- ~' ~ The method as in claim f further comprising the step of
`
`~ retrieving a boundary location of a most recent new data store as
`' a starting point of an available memory space

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket