Invalidity dossier

US 5652916

Prestaging method, buffer management method and file system

Current assignee: Fujitsu Ltd

Added 8/27/2026, 1:49:32 PM

At a glanceNo PTAB challengesNo litigation on fileSoftware Technology & Computing Systems (T)

Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-v4-flash

Auto-generating section 1 of 7: Litigation summary

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Patent summary

Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.

✓ Generated

I'll search for this specific patent number in the USPTO database and CAFC dockets.

Let me search for more details, particularly the complete claim set and any litigation/docket history.

Let me verify the complete claim set and check for any CAFC/appellate activity.

US Patent 5,652,916 (US5652916A) — Summary

Bibliographic data (verified against the USPTO patent image PDF and Google Patents)

Field Value
Title Prestaging method, buffer management method and file system
Patent number 5,652,916 (publication US5652916A)
Inventors Takeo Murakami; Satoru Torii (both of Kawasaki, Japan)
Assignee Fujitsu Limited, Kawasaki, Japan
Application no. 08/576,402
Filing date December 21, 1995
Issue date July 29, 1997
Parent application Continuation of Ser. No. 08/077,056, filed June 16, 1993, now abandoned
Earliest priority date June 29, 1992
Current legal status Expired – Fee Related (Google Patents lists an anticipated expiration of 2013-06-16)

Abstract (as issued)

"A prestaging method is adapted to a computer system comprising a central processing unit, a buffer and a secondary storage, where the prestaging method reads input data of a submitted job into the buffer from the secondary storage before executing the submitted job so as to carry out a prestaging. The prestaging method includes the steps of (a) obtaining a number of jobs for which prestagings are to be carried out simultaneously as the prestaging for the submitted job, (b) obtaining an effective data transfer speed based on the number of jobs and a data transfer speed of the secondary storage which stores the input data of the submitted job for which the prestaging is to be carried out, and (c) setting a prestaging start time from which the prestaging for the submitted job is to start by subtracting an effective data transfer time from a scheduled job start time from which the submitted job is to start, where the effective data transfer time is defined as a time which is obtained by dividing an amount of the input data by the effective data transfer speed."

Technology in plain language

The patent addresses the growing speed gap between CPUs and disk I/O. It "prestages" a job's input data from slow disk (14) into a faster buffer/disk cache (13) before the job starts, and solves the problem of when to start prestaging. Instead of using a fixed, static start time, the patent computes the start time dynamically from the disk's transfer speed, the amount of input data, the number of concurrently-prestaged jobs, and/or the current or predicted load on the data-transfer path — so prestaging finishes just-in-time (right before job execution), avoiding both premature cache occupation/takeover and incomplete prestaging. A second group of embodiments manages the buffer with three free lists ("used," "unused," "in-use") so sequentially-accessed blocks are recycled efficiently rather than using a plain LRU policy.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

  • Claim 1 (prestaging start time from concurrent-job count): A method that (a) counts how many jobs will be prestaged simultaneously with the submitted job; (b) computes an "operative/effective" data-transfer speed as a function of the disk's transfer speed and that job count; and (c) sets the prestaging start time = scheduled job start time − (total input data ÷ effective transfer speed).

  • Claim 10 (start time from current path load): At job submission, (a) detects the load on the data-transfer path between secondary storage and buffer; (b) computes effective transfer speed by subtracting that load from the disk's transfer speed; and (c) sets the prestaging start time by subtracting (total input data ÷ effective speed) from the scheduled start time.

  • Claim 12 (start time from predicted path load at prestaging): (a) Calculates the predicted load on the data-transfer path at the time prestaging will begin; (b) calculates the data-transfer speed by subtracting that predicted load from the disk's transfer speed; and (c) sets the prestaging start time accordingly.

  • Claim 14 (start time from reserved path): (a) Secures/reserves in advance the data-transfer path needed for prestaging; (b) obtains a "reserved" data-transfer speed based on the secured path; and (c) sets the prestaging start time by subtracting (input data ÷ reserved speed) from the scheduled start time (the reserved path guarantees that speed).

  • Claim 16 (correction of prior jobs' start times): (a) Sets the prestaging start time for the newly submitted job; and (b) after doing so, corrects the prestaging start time of a previously submitted job to account for the change in data-transfer-path load caused by the new job.

The remaining claims (2–9, 11, 13, 15, and 17+) are dependent. Claims 2, 11, 13, and 15 limit the buffer to the computer's main storage. Claims 3–9 (depending from claim 2) add the buffer-management features: at least three free lists ("used," "unused," "in-use") with block release into a list chosen by buffer state (claim 3); the state comprising transfer kind and amount (claim 4); queue placement by block position within the file (claim 5); queue placement based on whether the whole block was transferred (claim 6); distinct queuing of invalidated blocks on file deletion (claim 7); allocating by searching used→unused→in-use lists in that order (claim 8); and using per-block map information/access counts to judge whole-block transfer completion (claim 9).

Uncertainty notes

  • CAFC 2026 docket search: No results were found for patent 5652916 in any CAFC, PTAB, or other appellate docket search. This is consistent with the patent having expired (fee-related) around 2013, but I cannot affirmatively confirm the absence of any historical or current litigation; the docket search returned no hits either way.
  • Complete claim count/text: I verified claims 1–10 verbatim from Justia's copy and claims 10–17 from EveryPatent's copy (both consistent with the Google Patents record). The exact text of any claims beyond 17 could not be fully retrieved in this search session, so I cannot state with certainty whether the patent contains, e.g., a separately independent file-system claim (the specification's Summary describes file-system embodiments) or a re-prestaging independent claim (sixth embodiment). The claim set includes at least 17 claims.
  • The abstract quoted above is the official issued abstract as reproduced in the USPTO PDF and Google Patents record.

Sources: USPTO patent image PDF (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/45/ab/88/e20fa8483136d6/US5652916.pdf); Google Patents record US5652916A; Justia patent record (patents.justia.com/patent/5652916); EveryPatent record (everypatent.com/comp/pat5652916.html).

Generated 8/27/2026, 1:50:06 PM

Cases on file (0)

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5652916. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.

No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.

Litigation summary

Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.

Not generated yet. Click Generate to call the active LLM provider with the configured prompt.

Proceedings on file (0)

All PTAB activity →

AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.

No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.

PTAB challenges

AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.

Not generated yet. Click Generate to call the active LLM provider with the configured prompt.

Assignment history

Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.

Not generated yet. Click Generate to call the active LLM provider with the configured prompt.

Prior art

Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.

Not generated yet. Click Generate to call the active LLM provider with the configured prompt.

Obviousness

Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Not generated yet. Click Generate to call the active LLM provider with the configured prompt.

Extensions

Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.

Not generated yet. Click Generate to call the active LLM provider with the configured prompt.

Derivative works

Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.

Not generated yet. Click Generate to call the active LLM provider with the configured prompt.

Keep exploring

Other patents in Software Technology & Computing Systems (T)

See all Software Technology & Computing Systems (T) patents →