Ex Parte Filali-Adib et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2018

13838346 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/838,346 03/15/2013
48916 7590
Greg Goshorn, P.C.
9600 Escarpment Blvd.
Suite 745-9
AUSTIN, TX 78749
07/26/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Khalid Filali-Adib
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.
AUS920120428US 1 3986
EXAMINER
LOONAN, ERIC T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2131
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KHALID FILALI-ADIB,
JOHN MARK McCONAUGHY, NATHANIEL SCOTT TOMSIC,
and SUNGJIN YOOK
Appeal2017-011059
Application 13/838,346
Technology Center 2100
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JOYCE CRAIG, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1,2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 8-28. Appeal Br. 1. Claims 1-7 have been canceled.
Appeal Br. 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action (Final Act.) mailed
July 13, 2016, the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed January 12, 2017, the
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed May 19, 2017, and the Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) filed July 17, 2017.
Appeal 2017-011059
Application 13/838,346
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to "techniques for transforming a shared
virtualized file system space to a private file system space." Spec. ,r 1.
Claim 8 is reproduced below with emphasis:
8. An apparatus, comprising:
a processor;
a non-transitive, computer-readable storage medium (CRSM)
coupled to the processor; and
logic, stored on the CRSM and executed on the processor, for:
allocating disk space for a virtualized file space;
designating files within a global disk space as files to be
privatized with respect to the virtualized file space,
wherein the global disk space is a different space
than the virtualized file space;
copying the designated files from the global disk space to
the allocated disk space;
storing an indicator, in addition to the designated files, in
the virtualized file space specifying that the
designated files have been copied; and
in response to a startup of the virtualized file space
subsequent to the allocating, designating and
copying, detecting the indicator;
in response to detecting the indicator, redirect
references to the designated files in the
virtualized file space to the copied files; and,
in response to not detecting the indicator, direct
references to any undesignated files to
original references in the global disk space.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Poynor
Baimetov
US 6,859,812 Bl
US 8,656,386 Bl
Feb.22,2005
Feb. 18,2014
2 The real party in interest is listed as International Business Machines
Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
2
Appeal 2017-011059
Application 13/838,346
The Rejection
Claims 8-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Baimetov and Poynor. Final Act. 4--8. 3
THE CONTENTIONS
Claims 8-25
Regarding representative, independent claim 8, 4 the Examiner finds
Baimetov teaches many of its limitations, including storing an indicator in a
virtualized file space specifying that the designated files have been copied.
Final Act. 4--6 ( citing Baimetov 6: 15-20); Ans. 4. The Examiner turns to
Poynor, in combination with Baimetov, to teach or suggest the limitation of
storing an indicator "in addition to the designated files" as recited in claim 8.
Final Act. 6 (citing Poynor 3:52---62, Fig. 2); Ans. 4--5.
For independent claim 8, Appellants argue Poynor's Copy-on-Write
(CoW) property "would exist regardless of whether or not a file had been a
'designated file had been copied' into the virtualized space or not." Appeal
Br. 9. Appellants also argue the Co W field is an integral part of the file
rather than "an indicator, in addition to the designated files" as recited in
claim 8. Appeal Br. 9.
ISSUE
Under§ 103(a), has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 by finding
Baimetov and Poynor collectively would have taught or suggested "storing
3 The rejection of claims 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
presented in the Final Action (Final Act. 3) has been withdrawn (Ans. 2).
4 Appellants argue claims 8-25 as a group. Appeal Br. 9-10. We select
claim 8 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2017-011059
Application 13/838,346
an indicator, in addition to the designated files, in the virtualized file space
specifying that the designated files have been copied"?
ANALYSIS
We begin by construing the key disputed limitation of claim 8 which
calls for, in pertinent part, "an indicator." During examination of a patent
application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction "in light of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004). We presume that claim terms have their ordinary and customary
meanmg. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2007).
Although providing an example of "an indicator" in the Specification
as a "cookie," the disclosure makes clear an indicator "is not limited" to this
example. Spec. ,r 33. The Examiner, on the other hand, provides a plain and
ordinary meaning of the term, "indicator" to mean "a sign that shows the
condition or existence of something." Ans. 4 (citing Webster's Dictionary).
Appellants do not dispute this understanding in the Reply Brief. See
generally Reply Br. We thus determine the above definition of "an
indicator" as recited in claim 8 is reasonable.
Baimetov teaches a case where multiple virtual machines (VMs) are
running the same guest operating system and most of the files are identical.
Baimetov 5:46-48, 6:3-5. In this case, one VM may not have the full image
of an operating system, relying on links and a redirection module to another
virtual machine's (VM) files. Baimetov 6:11-15. When a user attempts to
modify a file that is present only as a link on a VM, a copy-on-write (Co W)
4
Appeal 2017-011059
Application 13/838,346
scheme replaces the link with the actual file in the VM's private file area.
Baimetov 6:11-24; see Ans. 4. The Examiner determines that storing of the
actual file in the VM's private file area teaches "storing an indicator ... in
the virtualized file space specifying that the designated files have been
copied." Final Act. 5 see Ans. 4. Appellants contend the stored file cannot
be characterized as an indicator of the file "in addition to the designated
files" as recited. Reply Br. 2.
As noted, the Examiner relies on Poynor to teach the "in addition to
the designated files" limitation (Final Act. 6; Ans. 4) and when combined
with Baimetov, teaches or suggests the recited "storing an indicator, in
addition to the designated files" limitation. Final Act. 6; Ans. 4--5. Poynor
teaches file 222 that includes Co W property 228 within Private File Area
204. Poynor 3:52-56, cited in Final Act. 6; see also Poynor, Fig. 2. Poynor
states Co W field 228 indicates to file manager 112 whether to copy file 210 5
from shared file area 202 in response to a write or update request by a
computer (e.g., 102-106) by setting the field to either "yes" or "no." Poynor
3:58---62, cited in Final Act. 6; see also Poynor, Figs. 1-2. The Examiner
discusses the Co W property field and maps this field to the recited
"indicator." See Ans. 4. More specifically, the Examiner discusses "the
CoW ... field propert[y] (to the affirmative state) provide[s] an indication or
a sign that shows the existence that a designated file has been copied" as
recited. Ans. 4; see also Ans. 5. The Examiner also states the Co W field
5 Although Poynor states "file 212" (Poynor 3 :60), we presume Poynor
intended to refer to file 210 previously described (Poynor 3 :21) and shown
in Figure 2. Element 212 is described as a "file tide [sic] field 212" (Poynor
3 :22, Fig. 2).
5
Appeal 2017-011059
Application 13/838,346
property is metadata to the shared files and the property is an indicator in
addition to the designated file. Ans. 5---6.
We agree with the Examiner that Poynor teaches and suggests a
scenario where the Co W field, separate from the copied file ( e.g., file 210),
shows a sign (e.g., indicates) that the designated files have been copied and
exist in the virtualized file space ( e.g., when Co W field 228 has a "yes"
value and a computer requests a write or an update, field 228 indicates the
designated files have been copied in the private/virtualized file area/space).
Even though in Poynor, the Co W property field is later set to "no" or a
negative state after copying a shared file to a private file area and providing
the requesting computer "write/update" access to the private copy (Poynor
4:63-5:3, Fig. 3B), Poynor teaches storing the recited "indicator" at least
temporarily. We thus disagree with Appellants that Polynor's CoW field is
an integral part of the recited "designated files" to be privatized.
Moreover, when combining Poynor's teachings with Baimetov, both
of which relate to Co W schemes, the resulting apparatus yields a predictable
result of "storing an indicator, in addition to the designated files, in the
virtualized file space specifying that the designated files have been copied"
in claim 8.
Appellants contend "the nature of a CO[W6] property would make it
unworkable in the context of the claimed subject matter" and the prior art
cannot be modified or combined because the CoW property's nature.
Appeal Br. 9. Specifically, Appellants state "A COA property cannot
provide the add [sic] the required functionality to Baimetov because a
6 Appellants refer to a "COA property" on several occasions. Appeal Br. 9.
We presume Appellants are discussing the Co W property field in Poynor.
6
Appeal 2017-011059
Application 13/838,346
CO[W] property would exist regardless of whether or not a file had been a
'designated file had been copied' into the virtualized space or not." Appeal
Br. 9.
As best understood, Appellants contend the Co W property field exists
whether or not the designated files have been copied. See Appeal Br. 9.
Even assuming, without agreeing, Appellants are correct, the argument is not
commensurate in scope with claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite "storing an
indicator" only when the designated files have been copied, but rather than
the stored indicator specifies the designated files have been copied.
Furthermore, the CoW property field's existence does not prevent the prior
art, such as Baimetov, from being modified, including modifying its private
storage area to store an indicator or metadata ( e.g., the Co W property field)
as the Examiner proposes. Final Act. 6; Ans. 4---6. As previously stated,
Baimetov and Poynor collectively teach or suggest embodiments where the
indicator (e.g., having a value of "yes") specifies the designated files have
been copied ( e.g., when a computer requests a write or an update). See
Ans. 5.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 8 and claims 9-25, which are not
separately argued.
Claims 26-28
Regarding claims 26-28, the Examiner relies on Poynor to teach the
limitations of "the logic further comprising logic for removing the indicator
in response to redirecting references in the virtualized file space to the
designated files to the copied files." Final Act. 8 (citing Poynor, Fig. 3B
(step 324)). The Examiner states indicator removal occurs in Poynor when
7
Appeal 2017-011059
Application 13/838,346
the Co W property field is set to a negative state ( e.g., "no") (Final Act. 8),
such as when changing this property, the field no longer provides an
indication or a sign that ... a designated file has been copied. As such, the
indicator may be said to be 'removed' when changing the associated value
of the property." Ans. 6.
Appellants argue Poynor's setting the CoW property is not removing
as recited. Appeal Br. 10. Appellants further contend modifying a CoW
attribute is not removing an indicator. Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded.
To repeat, the Specification provides an example of a cookie as an
indicator; however, the disclosure states this example is non-limiting. Spec.
,r 33. We therefore determine the Examiner's understanding of the recited
term "indicator" includes "a sign that shows the condition or existence of
something" is broad, but reasonable in light of the disclosure.
Turning to illustrative claim 26 and the rejection, we agree that
Poynor's "yes" value is an indicator, and Poynor further removes the
indicator. Final Act. 8; Ans. 3. In particular, Poynor teaches or suggests
changing the value of the CoW property field to a negative state at step 324
(e.g., changing the value of CoW property field 228 to "no") after copying
the share file to the private area ( e.g., step 320) and after providing the
requesting computer with "write/update" access ( e.g., step 322). Poynor,
Fig. 3B, cited in Final Act. 8; see also Poynor 4:60-5:3. That is, after
copying the file, the "yes" value for that file-i.e., the indicator-is gone.
See Final Act. 8; Ans. 6. By changing the CoW property field's value from
a "yes" to a "no," we agree with the Examiner that the sign showing the
existence of the designated files have been copied (e.g., an indicator) as
recited in independent claims 8, 14, and 20 and as explained above
8
Appeal 2017-011059
Application 13/838,346
disappears or is removed as further recited in claims 26-28. See Ans. 6
(stating changing the Co W property field "indicator may be said to be
'removed' when changing the associated value of the property.")
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 26-28.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 8-26 under§ 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9