Artur Bergman

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 24, 2019

14012596 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2019)

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.
14/012,596 08/28/2013 Artur Bergman 683.0002 9072
76444 7590 07/24/2019
Setter Roche LLP
14694 Orchard Parkway
Building A, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80023
EXAMINER
RIGOL, YAIMA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2135
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2019 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):
uspto@setterroche.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ARTUR BERGMAN
____________

Appeal 2018-007656
Application 14/012,596
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–16, 18–20, and 22–24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention purges data from storage based on block sizes.
In response to a request to purge particular content from a storage segment,
the invention identifies and purges other content in that segment above an
access frequency threshold that was not identified in the purge request. See
generally Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 2, 51–54. Claim 1 is illustrative:

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Fastly, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-007656
Application 14/012,596
2
1. A method of operating a cache node of a content
delivery network that caches content for delivery to end users,
the method comprising:
receiving, by the cache node, a purge request that
identifies first website content cached by the cache node,
wherein the first website content is stored in a storage space of
the cache node divided into a plurality of storage segments;
responsive to the purge request, identifying for erasure
from the storage space at least a first storage segment of the
plurality of storage segments, the first storage segment
currently storing at least a portion of the first website content;
identifying when:
the first storage segment is also currently storing at least
a portion of second website content not identified by the purge
request; and
the second website content has a request frequency from
the cache node greater than a request frequency threshold; and
performing the purge request by erasure of the first storage
segment which erases from the storage space at least the portion
of the first website content and the portion of the second
website content, thereby avoiding a read-modify-write
operation for the portion of the second website content during
erasure of the first storage segment by also erasing the portion
of die second website content when the first storage segment
contains the portion of the first website content and the portion
of the second website content.

Appeal 2018-007656
Application 14/012,596
3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gorobets (US 2007/0143560 A1;
published June 21, 2007) and Yamane (US 7,035,943 B2; issued Apr. 25,
2006). Final Act. 6–9.2
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 8, 12, 18, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Gorobets, Yamane, and Church (US
2007/0136533 A1; published June 14, 2007). Final Act. 9–11.
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 15, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gorobets, Yamane, and Flynn (US 2013/0073821 A1;
published Mar. 21, 2013).3 Final Act. 11–12.
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gorobets, Yamane, and Dingler (US 2012/0311091 A1;
published Dec. 6, 2012). Final Act. 13–14.
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 19, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gorobets, Yamane, and Swift (US 8,127,166 B1; issued
Feb. 28, 2012). Final Act. 14–15.

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed August
18, 2017 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed February 16, 2018 (“App.
Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 18, 2018 (“Ans.”); and (4) the
Reply Brief filed July 18, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
3 Although the Examiner’s statement of the rejection of claims 5, 15, and 24
indicates that the rejection is over Gorobets, Yamane, and Church, the
Examiner nonetheless refers to Flynn in the corresponding discussion.
Compare Final Act. 11 with Final Act. 12. Accordingly, we presume that
the Examiner intended to cite Flynn instead of Church in this rejection, and
treat the Examiner’s error as harmless.
Appeal 2018-007656
Application 14/012,596
4
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER GOROBETS AND YAMANE
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Gorobets
discloses, among other things, identifying a first storage segment for erasure
responsive to a purge request, where the storage segment stores at least a
portion of first and second website content, but the second website content is
not identified by the purge request. Final Act. 6. According to the
Examiner, Gorobets erases the first storage segment and its first and second
website content portions, thus avoiding a read-modify-write operation for
the second website content portion during erasure of the first storage
segment by also erasing the second website content portion when the
segment contains both portions. Id. Although the Examiner acknowledges
that Gorobets lacks the recited cache node functionality in the claim’s
preamble and receiving clause, the Examiner cites Yamane for teaching this
feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 6–
7.
Appellant argues that Gorobets does not delete both website content
portions responsive to a purge request as claimed, but rather moves a second
data group from a first location in a first block to a second location—an
operation that is said to not avoid a read-modify-write operation as claimed,
but rather require such an operation. App. Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 2–3.
Appellant adds that not only does Yamane not cure Gorobet’s deficiencies,
Yamane manages and delivers content on a web server—not a caching node
as claimed. App. Br. 9.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Gorobets and Yamane collectively would have taught or suggested
Appeal 2018-007656
Application 14/012,596
5
performing a received purge request by erasing a cache node’s first storage
segment and its first and second website content portions, thus avoiding a
read-modify-write operation for the second website content portion during
erasure of the first storage segment by also erasing the second website
content portion when the segment contains both portions?

ANALYSIS
As noted above, a key aspect of claim 1 is performing a received
purge request by erasing a cache node’s first storage segment along with the
first and second website content portions stored in that segment, despite the
request not identifying the second website content. Notably, this erasure of
both content portions from the first storage segment avoids a read-modify-
write operation for the second website content while erasing the segment.
To this end, the portion of the second website content is erased when the first
storage segment contains both content portions.
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Gorobets for at least suggesting these key temporal limitations. Gorobets
describes a garbage collection process that is triggered by obsolete data in a
block after a file delete operation or file erase command. Gorobets ¶¶ 171–
172, 194. Gorobets’ Figures 16A to 16D, for example, show direct-file
operations leading to garbage collection including relocating valid data. Id.
¶ 177.
As shown in Gorobets’ Figures 16B and 16C, block “BL0” includes
file “A” and part of file “B,” namely portion “B0.” File “B’s” other portion,
“B1,” is stored in block “BL1.” Id. ¶ 178; Figs. 16A–B. As shown in
Gorobets’ Figure 16C, deleting file “A” triggers relocating file “B’s” portion
Appeal 2018-007656
Application 14/012,596
6
“B0” from block “BL1” to blocks “BL1” and “BL2.” Id. ¶ 179. After this
relocation, the block “BL0” contains only obsolete data and can, therefore,
be erased as shown in Figure 16D. Id. ¶ 180.
The clear import of this functionality is that both content portions,
namely file “A” and portion “B0,” are erased—as is the first storage segment
containing that data, namely block “BL1.” And this erasure is responsive to
an associated “purge request,” namely a file erase command. See id. ¶ 173.
Appellant’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing and not commensurate
with the scope of the claim.
To be sure, this process does not avoid a read-write operation for the
second portion, but rather requires such an operation, namely by (1) reading
portion “B0” in block “BL0,” and then (2) writing that portion to blocks
“BL1” and “BL2.” Only then can the first storage segment, namely block
“BL0,” be erased. See Gorobets ¶¶ 179–180.
Although this read-write operation is not avoided, we cannot say the
same about a read-modify-write operation as claimed. We emphasize
“modify” here, for Appellant’s argument in this regard does not squarely
address this additional function. See App. Br. 8. According to Appellant,
Gorobets necessarily performs a read-modify-write operation by first
reading the existing fragmented data, and then writing data into a different
memory block. Id. Noticeably absent from this discussion is the “modify”
part of this operation. See id. To the extent Appellant contends that a read-
write operation is somehow the same as a read-modify-write operation, there
is not only no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a
contention, the Specification suggests otherwise. Notably, the Specification
explains that, in at least one implementation of this operation, “modifying”
is distinct from reading and writing. See Spec. ¶ 20 (noting that a read-
Appeal 2018-007656
Application 14/012,596
7
modify-write operation involves (1) reading the entire write block; (2)
modifying the contents accordingly with the portion of the data; and (3) re-
writing the modified write block to the medium). The Examiner’s point,
then, that Gorobets’ relocating data does not require modifying that data
(Ans. 3) is well taken, for even if this relocation involves reading and
writing as Appellant contends, there is no evidence on this record to show
that the data is also modified.
Nevertheless, even if we were to accept Appellant’s contention that
Gorobets’ read-write operation can somehow be considered a read-modify-
write operation—which it is not—such an operation is still avoided during
erasure of the first storage segment, namely when block “BL0” is erased in
Gorobets’ Figure 16D. Because data portion “B0” is moved from block
“BL0” to other blocks before erasing block “BL0,” this operation does not
occur during erasure of that block—a key temporal requirement of claim 1.
See Gorobets ¶¶ 179–180 (noting that valid data “B0” must be relocated
before the block can be erased).
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Gorobets
for at least suggesting identifying when the second website content has a
request frequency greater than a threshold. Final Act. 6; Ans. 4 (citing
Gorobets ¶¶ 28, 280, and 332). Determining whether data is accessed
frequently or infrequently in Gorobets’ paragraphs 28 and 280 not only at
least suggests requests associated with those data accesses—requests that
would likewise have an associated frequency—but also that these request
frequencies would be compared to a temporal threshold to determine
whether they are frequent or infrequent. That is, a request frequency greater
than some temporal threshold would indicate that those requests are made
more frequently than those below the threshold. Accord Ans. 4. Although
Appeal 2018-007656
Application 14/012,596
8
Gorobets does not articulate this threshold comparison explicitly, it is
nonetheless at least suggested by Gorobets’ functionality in at least
paragraphs 28 and 280. To the extent Appellant contends otherwise (see
App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3), we disagree.
We also see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on the functionality of
Yamane’s caching server 200 for at least suggesting a cache node receiving
a purge request identifying first website content as claimed. Final Act. 7;
Ans. 4 (citing Yamane col. 17, ll. 11–64). Despite Appellant’s arguments to
the contrary (App. Br. 9), Appellant does not persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s reliance on Yamane’s caching server that not only receives
requests for web pages, but also can flush obsolete web pages upon
notification—functionality that at least suggests receiving a purge request.
See Yamane col. 17, ll. 20–22, 55–57. Appellant’s contention, then, that
Yamane’s web server—not the caching server—manages and distributes
content (App. Br. 9) is unavailing given the caching server’s above-noted
functionality.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 20 not argued separately with
particularity.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2, 5,
6, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 22–25. Final Act. 9–15. Despite nominally
arguing these claims separately, Appellant reiterates similar arguments made
in connection with claim 1, and allege that the additional cited references fail
to cure those purported deficiencies. App. Br. 9–10. We are not persuaded
by these arguments for the reasons previously discussed.
Appeal 2018-007656
Application 14/012,596
9

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–6, 8–16, 18–20, and
22–24 under § 103.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–16, 18–20,
and 22–24.

AFFIRMED