Ex Parte Manczak et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 24, 201311654148 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation