Ex Parte Manczak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2013

11654148 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/654,148 01/16/2007 Olaf Manczak SUN060328 7928
51344 7590 04/25/2013
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK
1000 TOWN CENTER, TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CAM LINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2013 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 OLAF MANCZAK and ERIC JASON KUSTARZ
____________

Appeal 2010-008714
Application 11/654,1481
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to
computerized methods for traversing a file system tree on a storage device.
The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The real party in interest is Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Appeal 2010-008714
Application 11/654,148

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to method for traversing a file system tree on a
storage device includes obtaining a list of entries within a directory of the
file system tree. The list of entries is sorted in order of the file locations on
the storage device. The entries within the list of entries are accessed for tree
traversal in order in which they are sorted. (Abstract).
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-18 are on appeal. Claims 1, 7, and 13 are
independent. The claims have not been argued separately and therefore stand
or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized:
1. A computerized method for traversing a file system tree
on a storage
device comprising:
sorting a list of entries within a directory of the file
system tree in order of the physical location of the entries on
the storage device based on logical block addresses of a block
used by files within the list of entries; and
accessing the entries within the list of entries in order in
which they are sorted.

CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gold2 and Suzuki.3 (Ans. 2-4).4 Appellants

2 US 6,772,305 B2, Aug. 3, 2004.
3 US 7,447,672 B2, filed Aug. 25, 2003.
4Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
Footnote continued on the next page.

Appeal 2010-008714
Application 11/654,148

3
contend that neither Gold nor Suzuki, either singly or in combination, teach
or render obvious “sorting a list of entries within a directory of the file
system tree in order of the physical location of the entries on the storage
device based on logical block addresses of a block used by files within the
list of entries,” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 3). Appellants contend that
the Examiner finds that “‘Gold does not clearly disclose that the sort
operation . . . [is] ‘based on logical block addresses of a block used by files
within the list of entries.’” (App. Br. 3). Appellants contend that Suzuki does
not disclose sorting of any type. (App. Br. 4).
The Examiner finds that Gold’s method, as is Appellants’, is based on
a file directory which is provided a list of files and that Gold’s sorter
reorders the list of files into the order in which the files are physically
located on the disk. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Gold teaches that it
is desirable to “‘sort[] them by order of their physical location.’” (Ans. 5).
The Examiner finds that Gold does not disclose that the sort operation is
“based on logical block addresses of a block used by files within the list of
entries,” as claimed. However, the Examiner finds that Suzuki discloses a
memory device comprising a hierarchical directory structure, wherein the
memory includes physical and logical block addresses (Ans. 5 (citing
Suzuki, Fig. 8; col. 10, ll. 4-34)) and Suzuki teaches correlating these

refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 29, 2010), the Answer (mailed Mar. 24,
2010), and the Reply Brief (filed May, 24, 2010). We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2010-008714
Application 11/654,148

4
physical and logical addresses. (Ans. 5 (citing Suzuki, col. 12, l. 29-32)).
Appellants’ Reply reiterates their contention that Gold does not teach a sort
operation based on block addresses and that Suzuki does not teach the
limitation in question. (Reply Br. 2).
The issue with respect to this rejection is whether the combination of
Gold and Suzuki, suggested by the Examiner is reasonable.
ANALYSIS
We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. Gold (see
Figure 3, ordinal 318) teaches sorting a list of files based on their physical
location (“ORDER FILE LIST BY PHYSICAL LOC[ATION]”). We find that the
Examiner relies upon Suzuki, not to teach a sort operation, but to teach
correlating the physical and logical block addresses of files stored in a
memory. (Ans. 5). Nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding because it has a reasonable
basis. Such a modification of the combination of Gold and Suzuki is merely
a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that does
no more than yield predictable results–an obvious improvement that can be
implemented by a person of ordinary skill. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-17 (2007)
Claims 3-7, 9-13, and 15-18 are not separately argued and thus, fall
with claim 1.

Appeal 2010-008714
Application 11/654,148

5
SUMMARY

We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

gvw