Ex Parte Soneji et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201411876191 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2014) 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. 11/876,191 10/22/2007 DEEPAK SONEJI FLEX-37200 5751 28960 7590 12/22/2014 HAVERSTOCK & OWENS LLP 162 N WOLFE ROAD SUNNYVALE, CA 94086 EXAMINER ROLAND, GRISELLE CORBO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2158 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2014 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 DEEPAK SONEJI and EVAN ZHANG ____________________ Appeal 2012-007364 Application 11/876,191 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-007364 Application 11/876,191 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 3, 8, 14, and 20–28. Claims 2, 4–7, 9–13, and 15–19 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to data recovery in an enterprise data storage system. Abst. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics: 1. A system for providing testing data, the system comprising: a backup storage system; a backup database stored within the backup storage system, wherein: the backup database replicates data stored within a primary database; and the primary database is stored on a primary storage system in communication with the backup storage system and in communication with computational devices of a plurality of distinct entities to maintain data for the plurality of distinct entities; a processor communicatively coupled to the backup storage system, the processor having instructions to generate a virtual database as a plurality of software pointers respectively associated with data elements of the backup database without replicating the data elements of the backup database; and an interface to the virtual database allowing access by a computational device of at least one of the distinct entities, whereby test data may be retrieved from the backup database by the computational device of the at least one of the distinct entities over the interface. Appeal 2012-007364 Application 11/876,191 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Randal Asgar-Deen US 2005/0223043 A1 US 7,552,358 B1 Oct. 6, 2005 June 23, 2009 REJECTIONS1 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 8, 14, and 20–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Randal and Asgar-Deen. Ans. 10–24. APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION Because Asgar-Deen’s pointers “point internally within the third host 165 to data elements that are replicated” they fail to teach or suggest the disputed limitation including without replicating the data element of the backup database. App. Br. 9. ISSUE ON APPEAL Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4–9) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1–3), the issue presented on appeal is whether 1 Appellants argue the rejection of claim 1. Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3, 8, 14, and 20–28. “A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(last sentence). Further, merely restating with respect to a second claim an argument, previously presented with respect to a first claim, is not an argument for separate patentability of the two claims. Therefore, based on Appellants’ arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1, 3, 8, 14, and 20–28 based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2012-007364 Application 11/876,191 4 the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Randal and Asgar-Deen teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 9–24) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 24–27) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. Appellants contend Asgar-Deen’s teaching of pointers is insufficient because the pointers are not associated with data elements of the backup database so as to avoid replicating the data elements of the backup database. App. Br. 9. Instead, according to Appellants, Asgar-Deens pointers point internally within third host 165 to data elements that are replicated. Id. The Examiner responds by finding Asgar-Deen describes backup metadata objects that point to images (i.e., pointers associated with data elements of a backup) and use of the metadata points to existing images, making it “possible to avoid creating full images of the secondary data objects themselves, which would have resulted in duplication of data.” Ans. 24. The Examiner concludes combining Randal’s teaching of a processor having instructions to generate a virtual database respectively associated with data elements of the backup database with Asgar-Deen’s teaching of pointers to Appeal 2012-007364 Application 11/876,191 5 avoid duplication of data would result in teaching or suggesting the disputed claim limitation. Ans. 12–13. We agree with the Examiner. Appellants fail to provide sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us Asgar-Deen’s teaching of pointers is limited to internal use within a host and is not applicable to data elements of different databases as required by the disputed limitation of claim 1. Nor do Appellants explain why Asgar-Deen’s teaching of pointers so as to avoid data duplication is inapplicable to Randal’s second backup aggregation. In particular, although Asgar-Deen’s use of pointers may not be used to avoid duplication between the first and second backup aggregations or between the primary data objects and the second backup aggregation, as conceded by Appellants, “[t]he use of such pointers within the second backup aggregation does avoid data duplication within the second backup aggregation.” Reply Br. 2. Therefore we find one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the use of pointers, whether internal or external to a particular backup or database, avoids duplication of data. In rejecting claim 1 the Examiner relies on Randal for teaching the recited subject matter except for the use of software pointers and generating the virtual database without replicating the data elements of the backup database. Ans. 10–12. However, the Examiner finds and we agree Asgar- Deen’s backup metadata objects teach software pointers and the use of these pointers to avoid data duplication teaches providing access to data elements without replicating the data elements. Ans. 12–13. Therefore we further agree with the Examiner in concluding the combination of Randal and Asgar-Deen teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 13. Appeal 2012-007364 Application 11/876,191 6 For the reasons supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claim 1 and, for the same reasons, the rejection of independent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Randal and Asgar-Deen together with the rejections of dependent claims 3, 14, and 20–28 which were not separately argued. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Randal and Asgar-Deen teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 8, 14, and 20–28 is affirmed. 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