JACOB BROIDO

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2021

2020000671 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2021)

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.
14/846,859 09/07/2015 JACOB BROIDO 8821-US 3421
120142 7590 04/29/2021
Reches Patents
211 North Union Street
Suite 100
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
MACKES, KRIS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2021 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
mail@i-p.co.il
patents@infinidat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JACOB BROIDO
Appeal 2020-000671
Application 14/846,859
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JASON J. CHUNG, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–23. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as INFINIDAT
LTD. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000671
Application 14/846,859
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an accessing a block based volume as a file
based volume. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for accessing a block level volume as a virtual
file by a file level client, the method comprises:
pairing block level volumes of a storage system
respectively with virtual file pathnames;
receiving, by a network attached storage (NAS) interface
of the storage system and from the file level client, a file level
command that is associated with a virtual file pathname that is
indicative that the file level command is aimed to a block level
volume and not to a file of a file system, wherein the virtual file
pathname is comprised in the virtual file pathnames;
determining, by the storage system, that the virtual file
pathname is indicative of a given block level volume and not
indicative of a file of a file system, and identifying the given
block level volume among the block level volumes, in response
to the virtual file pathname;
translating, by the storage system, the file level command
to a block level command for accessing the given block level
volume;
accessing, by the storage system, the given block level
volume to provide a block level response;
converting, by the storage system, the block level response
to a file level response; and
sending to the file level client the file level response.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Hosouchi US 2009/0235126 A1 Sept. 17, 2009
Le US 2012/0265959 A1 Oct. 18, 2012
Sakata US 2015/0248245 A1 Sept. 3, 2015
Bhagi US 2017/0024152 A1 Jan. 26, 2017

Appeal 2020-000671
Application 14/846,859
3
REJECTIONS
Claim(s) 1–4, 8–12, 16–20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bhagi. Final Act. 2.
Claims 5 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bhagi in view of Le. Final Act. 7.
Claims 6, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bhagi in view of Sakata. Final Act 8.
Claims 7, 15, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bhagi in view of Hosouchi. Final Act. 9.

OPINION
Independent claims 1, 9 and 17
With respect to independent claims 1, 9 and 17, Appellant does not set
forth separate arguments for patentability. Appeal Br. 14. As a result, we
select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Therefore, claims 2–4, 8–12, 16–20 and 23 will
stand or fall with representative independent claim 1. Arguments which
Appellant could have made but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In the Final Rejection, the Examiner shows how the Bhagi reference
anticipates claim 1 through detailed mappings with explanations of claim
elements to Bhagi. Final Act. 2–4. The Examiner’s rejections (id.) were set
forth in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 132, addressing each limitation of the rejected
claims. See, e.g., In re Jung, 637 F. 3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Appeal 2020-000671
Application 14/846,859
4
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant makes general allegations about what
Bhagi teaches and recites claim language that Bhagi allegedly fails to teach.
Appeal Br. 11–14. This is unpersuasive because the general allegations do
not specifically contest the Examiner’s factual findings in the Final
Rejection nor apprise us of flaws in the Examiner’s reasoning or legal
conclusions. Appellant does not address precisely and refute the detailed
mappings and explanations made by the Examiner of Bhagi to the elements
of claim 1. Arguments must address the Examiner’s findings in the action.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“The arguments shall explain why the examiner
erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant”). The Board
will not advocate for Appellants by scouring the record to see if the Board
can identify some flaw in the Examiner’s findings of fact, articulated
reasoning, or legal conclusions. See, e.g., Halli-burton Energy Services, Inc.
v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1250 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A skeletal
‘argument’, really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a
claim…. Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”)
(citation omitted). To the extent that Appellant makes arguments in the
Appeal Brief, these arguments are addressed in the Examiner’s Answer.
Ans. 3–5. Although a Reply Brief is not required, Appellant did not file a
response to dispute Examiner’s clarifications and findings made in the
Examiner’s Answer.
“It is well-established that the Board is free to affirm an examiner’s
rejection so long as appellants have had a fair opportunity to react to the
thrust of the rejection.” In re Jung, 637 F. 3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
2011)(citations omitted). We find that the Examiner has thoroughly and
comprehensively addressed all the issues involved in this appeal, particularly
in light of the fact that Appellants have failed to specifically identify errors
Appeal 2020-000671
Application 14/846,859
5
in the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner’s factual
findings, reasoning, and conclusions (Final Act. 2–4; Ans. 3–5) as our own.
See, e.g., In re Paulsen, 30 F. 3d 1475, 1478 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s factual findings supporting
the Examiner’s finding of anticipation, and we sustain the rejection of claim
1. Because Appellant has not set forth separate arguments for patentability
of independent claims 9, 17 and dependent claims 2–4, 8, 10–12, 16, 18–20
and 23, these claims fall with representative independent claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to dependent claims 5–7 and 13–15 and 21–22,
Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for patentability of the
obviousness rejection. Therefore, Appellant has not shown error in the
Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of claims 5–7 and
13–15 and 21–22, and we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection for
the same reasons discussed above with respect to their respective
independent claims 1, 9, 17.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–23 is AFFIRMED.

Appeal 2020-000671
Application 14/846,859
6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8–12,
16–20, 23
102(a)(2) Bhagi 1–4, 8–12,
16–20, 23

5, 13 103 Bhagi, Le 5, 13
6, 14, 21 103 Bhagi, Sakata 6, 14, 21
7, 15, 22 103 Bhagi, Hosouchi 7, 15, 22
Overall
Outcome
1–23

RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED