Ex Parte Hughes

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2012

11497026 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2012)

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.
11/497,026 07/31/2006 David Anthony Hughes PA3618US 6140
22830 7590 11/14/2012
CARR & FERRELL LLP
120 CONSTITUTION DRIVE
MENLO PARK, CA 94025
EXAMINER
AYASH, MARWAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2012 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 DAVID ANTHONY HUGHES
________________

Appeal 2011-000353
Application 11/497,026
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and GLENN J. PERRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000353
Application 11/497,026

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This application is one of three related applications: 1) Application
11/202,697; 2) Application 11/240,110 (CIP of Application 11/202,697);
and 3) Application 11/497,026 (CIP of Application 11/202,697). We
previously decided Appeal No. 2010-003954 for Application 11/202,697
and Appeal No. 2010-003830 for Application 11/240,110.
Appellant seeks our review1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection2 of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18 and 20-27. Claims 3,
11 and 19 have been cancelled.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b). We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellant describes the invention as relating to network memory
architecture that addresses the problem of remote users having access to data
which are centrally stored and managed, particularly when those data are
encrypted. Spec. at ¶ [0001]. A source side appliance intercepts data sent
from a source side computer to a destination side computer. The source side
appliance communicates with a destination side appliance to determine
whether the intercepted data can be locally accessed at the destination side.
If the intercepted data are not locally accessible on the destination side, the
intercepted data are transferred over the network. However, if the
intercepted data are determined to be locally accessible at the destination
side, the intercepted data are not sent. Instead, instructions are sent to the

1 Notice of Appeal filed March 24, 2009.
2 Final Office Action mailed December 31, 2008.
3 A response filed April 11, 2008, cancelled claims 3, 11 and 19 and added
claims 25-27.
Appeal 2011-000353
Application 11/497,026

3
destination side indicating locally available and the destination side locally
retrieves the data, thereby relieving some bandwidth demand. See Abstract
and App. Br. at 15.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized.

1. A network memory system for ensuring compliance,
comprising:
a source-site appliance comprising a first processor and a
first memory device, and configured to be coupled to a source-
site computer via a source-site local area network;
a destination-site appliance comprising a second
processor and a second memory device, and configured to be
coupled to a destination-site computer via a destination-site
local area network, the source-site computer in communication
with the destination-site computer via a wide area network;
the source-site appliance configured to intercept data
sent from the source-site computer to the destination-site
computer, encrypt the data, store the data in the first memory
device, determine whether the data exists in the second memory
device, and transmit a store instruction comprising the data if
the data does not exist in the second memory device; and
the destination-site appliance configured to receive the
store instruction from the source-site appliance, store the data in
the second memory device, subsequently receive a retrieve
instruction comprising an index at which the data is stored in
the second memory device, process the retrieve instruction to
obtain encrypted response data, and decrypt the encrypted
response data.
Evidence Considered
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Chang US 2004/0117571 A1 June 17, 2004
Straube US 7,200,847 B2 Apr. 3, 2007

Appeal 2011-000353
Application 11/497,026

4
The Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18 and 20-27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang and Straube. Ans. at 3.

Examiner Findings
The Examiner finds that the disputed limitations encompass the logic
elements shown in Chang Fig. 2, reproduced below, in addition to externally
connected processor/memory devices (not shown in Chang) that work in
cooperation with those logic elements per Chang ¶¶ [0009] and [0016]. Ans.
at 3-4.

Chang’s Figure 2 is a diagram of a replication system 200 within a cluster
node. The figure shows “in-memory object” 205 coupled to “replication
logic” 210, “current object state” 215 coupled to “replication logic” 210 and
“previously replicated object state” 220 coupled to “current object state”
215. “Difference logic” 225 compares outputs of “previously replicated
object state” 220 and “current object state” 215.
Appeal 2011-000353
Application 11/497,026

5

The Examiner reasons that system 200 includes several “logic”
elements (e.g. 210, 225, 230, and 240). According to ¶¶ [0009] and [0016]
of Chang, each replication system of each node may include any number of
externally connected processor/memory devices that work in a cooperative
capacity with the elements depicted in Chang Figure 2. The Examiner
interprets Chang Figure 2 as showing that in-memory object 205 is
intercepted by logic elements (possibly node-external processor/memory
devices according to ¶¶ [0009] and [0016] of Chang) on its way from a
source server/node to other destination servers/nodes. Ans. at 3-6.
The Examiner finds that the encryption aspects of the invention are
contemplated by Chang because one ordinarily skilled would understand that
the encoding/decoding referred to in Chang encompass
encrypting/decrypting. Ans. at 4.
The Examiner finds that Straube teaches a replication facility wherein
object replicas are stored in a distributed computer system and are replicated
- between computers that are part of a WAN including multiple LANs -
using difference data in order to reduce redundant network traffic (Straube
abstract lines 19-25). Computers/nodes make use of replication facilities
(analogous to the claimed appliances) which facilitate object replication and
are configured to identify locally accessible data of remote nodes (Straube
Fig. 3-4 and accompanying disclosures), issue instructions or commands
during the course of replication, generate difference data, and transmit
instructions/data over any combination of LAN/WAN to a remote node.
Furthermore, Straube teaches encryption, and by necessary extension,
Appeal 2011-000353
Application 11/497,026

6
decryption in the course of network data transmission (Straube Col 8 lines
55-58). Ans. at 5-6.

Appellant Contentions
Appellant argues that Chang and Straube do not teach or render
obvious an appliance configured to intercept data sent from a source-site
computer and directed to a destination-site computer. App. Br. at 14-23.
Appellant contends that Chang does not disclose a network system
having an appliance configured to “intercept data sent from the source-site
computer to the destination-site computer”, ”determine whether the data
exists in the second memory device” and “transmit a store instruction
comprising the data if the data does not exist in the second memory device”
as required by claim 1. App. Br. at 15-18.
Appellant further contends that Straube does not provide the teachings
missing from Chang. In particular, Straube does not “intercept” data sent by
a source to a destination. App. Br. at 18-23.

II. ANALYSIS
Claim 1
We agree with Appellant that Chang and Straube do not teach or make
obvious an appliance configured to intercept data sent from a source-site
computer and directed to a destination-site computer.
According to Appellant, Chang discloses a clustered processing
system in which replication logic controls replication of objects to one or
more replica states. App. Br. 16. Chang Figure 1, reproduced below, shows
Appeal 2011-000353
Application 11/497,026

7
an example system diagram of one embodiment of a clustered system having
a replication system in accordance with the Chang invention.

Appellant explains that Chang discloses "a clustered processing
system [in which] replication logic controls replication of objects to one or
more replica states.” App. Br. at 16 (citing to Chang, Abstract). Chang
indicates that "a cluster is a group of independent servers or nodes 105 that
Appeal 2011-000353
Application 11/497,026

8
collaborate as a single system." App. Br. at 16 (citing Chang ¶ [0020])
(Emphasis in original). "[C]luster components may include one or more
processor nodes such as servers 1-n, a cluster interconnect (private network)
that provides node-to-node communication, and a storage subsystem." Id.
Servers such as “Server A” and “Server B” shown in Chang Figure 1
maintain “replica states” of objects. See Chang Fig.1. As Appellant notes,
when a replica state is not up-to-date, "[d]ifference logic determines
difference values between the current state and the previously replicated
state" in a given server in the cluster. Once the difference values are
determined, "[t]he differences are then transmitted to the other servers in the
cluster where each will update its version of the replica state with the
differences." App. Br. at 17 (citing Chang ¶¶ [0007] and [0026]). Appellant
argues that because only differences are transmitted and the differences are
not available at the destination, no data are being intercepted and no
determination is being made as to whether data already transmitted are
available at a destination-site. App. Br. at 17-18. We agree with Appellant.
The disputed limitation requires more than Chang’s local replication of
objects by Chang’s “replication logic 210” shown in Chang Figure 2.
The Examiner finds that the replication system depicted in Chang
Figure 2 comprises several 'logic' elements. According to Chang ¶¶ [0009]
and [0016], each replication system of each node may comprise any number
of externally connected processor/memory devices that work in cooperation
with the elements depicted in Chang Figure 2. Ans. at 4. The Examiner
further finds that since Chang's invention operates according to a push-
model, each node must be configured to make itself aware of locally
accessible data of the other nodes in order to generate useful replication
Appeal 2011-000353
Application 11/497,026

9
instructions. Ans. at 4-5. The Examiner’s logic is that replication
instructions are intercepted by logic elements (possibly node-external
processor/memory devices) on the way to other servers/nodes, to perform a
determination of whether a portion of the transmitted data corresponds to the
locally accessible data at the destination-site. Ans. at 5.
We agree with Appellant’s understanding of the teachings of Chang,
as expressed below:
"each time the in-memory object 205 is to be replicated,
serializing logic [e.g., replication logic 210] serializes the data
and stores the serialized form as a current object state 215."
Chang, [0029]. "To determine the delta object or modified
portions of the current object state 215, difference logic 225
analyzes the data between the current state 215 and the
previously replicated state 220." Chang, [0031]. "The
differences between the previous state 220 and current state 215
are identified and copied as a set of difference data 235 which is
transmitted for replication to other nodes in the cluster" such as
by communication logic 240. Id.

App. Br. at 18.
The stated functions or operations described in connection with
Chang’s Figure 2 do not constitute interception of data sent from one node
of a computer to another. Rather, difference data are determined and
transmitted from one node to another. As such, there is no interception of
data and no local retrieval of data intercepted. We therefore do not sustain
the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4-8 and 25.
Independent Claim 9
Our analysis applies equally to independent claim 9, which requires
“intercepting data sent from a source-site computer to a destination-site
Appeal 2011-000353
Application 11/497,026

10
computer.” We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 9 and its
dependent claims 10, 12-16 and 26.
Independent Claim 17
Our analysis applies equally to independent claim 17, in computer
program product form requiring a processor to “intercept data sent from a
source-site computer to a destination-site computer, encrypt the intercepting
data sent from a source-site computer to a destination-site computer…” We
therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 17 and its dependent claims
18, 20-24 and 27.

III. CONCLUSION
1. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18 and
20-27 under § 103.

IV. ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18 and
20-27 is reversed.

REVERSED

KMF