Ex Parte Grube et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2019

13450000 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/450,000 04/18/2012 Gary W. Grube
89322 7590 02/21/2019
Garlick & Markison (IBM)
106 E. 6th Street, Suite 900
Austin, TX 78701
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.
CS00730/END920l65737US2 8175
EXAMINER
SOMERS, MARC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2019 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):
MMURDOCK@TEXASPATENTS.COM
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARY W. GRUBE and TIMOTHY W. MARKISON 1
Appeal2018-006799
Application 13/450,000
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-16 and 18, all the pending claims in
the present application (see Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants name International Business Machines as the real party in
interest (App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2018-006799
Application 13/450,000
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention generally relates to retrieving a hypertext
markup language file from a dispersed storage network memory. See
Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method comprises:
rece1vmg a request for a hypertext markup language
(HTML) file, wherein the request includes a universal record
locator (URL) associated with the HTML file and wherein the
HTML file is stored as a plurality of sets of encoded data slices
in a dispersed storage network (DSN) and wherein a threshold
number of encoded data slices of a set of encoded data slices of
the plurality of sets of encoded data slices is needed to
reconstruct a data segment of the HTML file using an error
encoding dispersal storage function;
translating the URL into a source name by accessing a
DSN memory directory, wherein the source name includes a
vault identifier and a file identifier, wherein the file identifier is
regarding the URL;
generating a plurality of sets of slice names based on the
source name, wherein the plurality of sets of slice names
corresponds to logical addresses of the plurality of sets of
encoded data slices;
sending a plurality of sets of read requests to a set of
storage units of the DSN, wherein the plurality of sets of read
requests includes the plurality of sets of slice names; and
in response to a set of read requests of the plurality of sets
of read requests, receiving at least the threshold number of
encoded data slices of a corresponding set of encoded data slices
of the plurality of sets of encoded data slices from at least some
of the storage units of the set of storage units.
App. Br. 13 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-006799
Application 13/450,000
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
RI. Claims 1-3, 8-11, and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
I03(a)2 as being unpatentable over Baptist et al. (US 2011/0029524 Al, pub.
Feb. 3, 2011) and Cherkasova et al. (US 2008/0221911 Al, pub. Sept. 11,
2008).
R2. Claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
I03(a) as being unpatentable over Baptist, Cherkasova, and Savitzky et al.
(US 7,451,236 B2, pub. Nov. 11, 2008).
R3. Claims 4 and 12 are rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Baptist, Cherkasova, and van de Ven et al. (US
7,970,940 Bl, pub. June 28, 2011).
R4. Claims 5 and 13 are rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Baptist, Cherkasova, and Baumback et al. (US
7,865,594 Bl, pub. Jan. 4, 2011).
R5. Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Baptist, Cherkasova, and Cheline et al. (US 2003/0041091
Al, publ. Feb. 27, 2003).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
2 Because Appellants filed the application prior to March 16, 2013, the
version of 35 U.S.C. § 103 we apply here is the one preceding the changes
made by the America Invents Act. See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284,293, § 3(n) (2011).
3
Appeal2018-006799
Application 13/450,000
ANALYSIS
The issue before us is whether the combined teachings of Baptist and
Cherkasova teach or suggest "translating the URL into a source name by
accessing a DSN memory directory," as recited by claim 1.
Appellants initially contend that "Baptist's request already includes a
source name that includes a file name and vault identifier" and therefore the
references fail to disclose "translating any portion of the request into a
source name." App. Br. 6. Appellants rely on paragraph 68 of Baptist,
which states, "one of the plurality of users (i.e., User # 1) utilizes a native OS
file system to access User # 1 's virtual memory 90 by including source name
information ... in any request such as read, write, delete, list, etc." Baptist
,r 68. But the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Appellants' narrow focus
on paragraph 68 ignores Baptist's other teachings. See Ans. 4.
For example, the Examiner points to contrary teachings at least in
paragraphs 45, 49, 94--97, 107, and 112 of Baptist. Id. There the Examiner
finds, and we agree, that "[ a user's] initial request does not include the
source name information when it is received by the gateway module[,]
which translates ... the request ... where the translated request includes a
source name." Id. at 5. Specifically, Baptist's "gateway module 106
translates the data file retrieval from the conventional file system interface
into a retrieval message of a DSN memory interface convention." Baptist
,r 107 ( emphasis added).
Prior to this retrieval translation, during data storage, Baptist's
"gateway module may ... also determine a source name 121 to associate
with the data object 122." Id. ,r 97 (emphasis added). This "source
name 121 may contain ... a file number ... and the vault identifier." Id. A
4
Appeal2018-006799
Application 13/450,000
separate "access module 108 may include the source name 121 in each ...
data segment 117" of the data object "before passing the data segment 117 to
[a] grid module 110." Id. ,r 99. Subsequently, when the gateway module
106 "translates the data file retrieval," the "grid module 11 O"-which now
has the source name-"receives the retrieval message and determines where
(e.g., which DS storage units) the EC data slices for each segment of the data
file should be." Id. ,r 107 (emphasis added). For example, as part of data
retrieval, Baptist's "gateway module 106 receives the user identifier 118 and
looks up the vault identifier." Id. ,r 96 (emphasis added).
In other words, Baptist teaches or suggests that the retrieval
translation process involves determining where the file is located, i.e.,
determining the source name of that file, including at least the vault
identifier. Baptist also at least implies that identifying a "file identifier" is
part of this translation because the grid module, which includes the source
name (having a "file number ... and the vault identifier"), "determines
where ... the EC data slices for each segment of the data file should be."
See id. ,r,r 97, 107 ( emphasis added). Moreover, Baptist also discloses that
the "object name and file identifier are always linked and the relationship
may be stored in the user vault" (id. ,r 112), further suggesting that the file
identifier would also be determined during Baptist's retrieval translation.
See Ans. 5. Thus, Baptist teaches or suggests claim 1 's "translating ... into
a source name ... , wherein the source name includes a vault identifier and a
file identifier."
In contrast, paragraph 68 of Baptist describes an embodiment where
the source name is included in a read request: "In an embodiment, one of
the plurality of users (i.e., User #1) utilizes a native OS file system to access
5
Appeal2018-006799
Application 13/450,000
User #1 's virtual memory 90 by including source name information (i.e., a
file/block name identifying a data object and a vault identifier associated
with the user) in any request such as [a] read .... " (Emphasis added). But
paragraph 68 is not the only embodiment in Baptist, and the other
embodiments described above teach or suggest translation into a source
name. "[ A ]11 disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred
embodiments, must be considered." In re Inland Steel Co., 265 F.3d 1354,
13 61 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ( quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F .2d 7 4 7, 7 50 ( CCP A
1976)).
Further, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Baptist in
combination with Cherkasova teaches or suggests translating a URL into a
source name. See Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that Cherkasova teaches "the
usage of a URL to retrieve HTML files." Id.; Cherkasova ,r 38 ("a user
input[s] the URL" and "Server 201A ... sends [the] HTML file ... to client
A"). Appellants do not dispute that Cherkasova discloses URL access of
HTML files or the propriety of combining Cherkasova with Baptist. Instead,
Appellants merely argue that Baptist does not disclose a URL. Reply Br. 3.
Appellants' arguments attacking Baptist and Cherkasova in isolation do not
persuasively rebut the underlying factual findings and ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness made by the Examiner, which are based upon the
combined teachings and suggestions of the cited references. One cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We also find unpersuasive Appellants' Reply argument that Baptist's
"lookup on user information [ does not] disclose that a URL is translated into
6
Appeal2018-006799
Application 13/450,000
the source name." See Reply Br. 3. Again, Appellants argue the references
individually, ignoring that the Examiner primarily relies upon the
combination of Cherkasova with Baptist for "the URL" portion of the
disputed limitation. See Ans. 4.
Finally, Appellants also contend that Baptist and Cherkasova fail to
disclose "accessing a DSN memory directory to perform the translation,
because the source name information is already included in Baptist's request
and accessing a directory would serve no purpose." App. Br. 6. As
explained above, we disagree with Appellants that the source name is
necessarily included in Baptist's request, and thus, that accessing a directory
would serve no purpose. To the contrary, the Examiner finds, and we agree,
that "[the] source name determination includes using the supplied user ID to
lookup a vault identifier[,] ... where the action of 'lookup' indicates a
directory or index is used." Ans. 4; see Baptist ,r 96 ("looks up the vault
identifier"). Moreover, in the same paragraph where Baptist discloses
"receiv[ing] the user identifier 118 and look[ing] up the vault identifier,"
Baptist teaches that "[t]he gateway module 106 may access user information
115 from ... the DSN memory." Baptist ,r 96 (emphasis added). As such,
we agree with the Examiner that the cited references teach or suggest
translating the URL into a source name by accessing a DSN memory
directory.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellants' arguments regarding the rejection of independent claim 9 rely
on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellants do not argue separate
patentability for the dependent claims. See App. Br. 7-11. We therefore
7
Appeal2018-006799
Application 13/450,000
also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-16 and 18. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 1-16 and 18.
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
8