Ex Parte Basu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2013

11198806 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SUJOY BASU, SUJATA BANERJEE, SHISHIR
GARG, SUKESH GARG, SUNG-JU LEE, PRAMILA
MULLAN, and PUNEET SHARMA
____________________

Appeal 2010-009181
Application 11/198,806
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before: ROBERT E. NAPPI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009181
Application 11/198,806

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 26-31.1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to “a system for linking
together multiple registries and aggregating data from the multiple
registries.” Spec. § Abstract.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system for linking together multiple local registries
and aggregating data therefrom, the system comprising:

a plurality of participating network nodes;

a distributed index storage and retrieval system stored
across the plurality of participating network nodes in a
distributed manner; and

at least one proxy registry configured to receive a search
query from a client system, retrieve addresses of select local
registries which have entries satisfying the search query from

1 Claims 4, 14, and 17-25 are canceled. Claims 2, 10, and 12 are pending but
not appealed. Therefore, we pro forma affirm the rejections of claims 2, 10,
and 12. Appellants never addressed dependent claim 11, which depends
from independent claim 3. Therefore, claim 11 will stand or fall with claim
3.
Appeal 2010-009181
Application 11/198,806

3
the distributed index storage and retrieval system, obtain said
entries from said select local registries, collate the entries
obtained, and send a collated response to the client system.

References
Gusack
Zhao
Marceau
Forman
US 6,112,209
US 2003/0191802 A1
US 2005/0240591 A1
US 2006/0041560 A1
Aug. 29, 2000
Oct. 9, 2003
Oct. 27, 2005
Feb. 23, 2006

Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 13, 15, 16, and 26-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marceau and Gusack. Ans. 4-10.
Claims 2 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Marceau, Gusack, and Zhao. Ans. 10-12.
Claims 8, 9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Marceau, Gusack, and Forman. Ans. 12-14.

ISSUES
Appellants argue that the combination of Marceau and Gusack does
not teach “at least one proxy registry configured to receive a search query
from a client system, retrieve addresses of select local registries which have
entries satisfying the search query from the distributed index storage and
retrieval system, obtain said entries from said select local registries, collate
the entries obtained, and send a collated response to the client system,” as
recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 3
and 13. App. Br. 5-8. Appellants also argue that the additional limitations in
Appeal 2010-009181
Application 11/198,806

4
dependent claims 6-9, 16, 26, 28, 30, and 31 are not taught by the
combination of Marceau and Gusack. App. Br. 8-14.
Issue: Does the combination of Marceau and Gusack teach or suggest
each of the limitations of independent claims 1, 3, and 13 and dependent
claims 6-9, 16, 26, 28, 30, and 31?

ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 3, and 13
Appellants argue that Marceau shows obtaining data object IDs, each
of which identifies a single data object, which is not the same as retrieving
“addresses of select local registries,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5.
Appellants present the same argument with respect to independent claims 3
and 13. App. Br. 6-7. Appellants also assert that the node (102A) in Marceau
that the Examiner relies upon as teaching a proxy registry is not the same
node (102B) that retrieves the data objects. App. Br. 6. Appellants present
the same argument with respect to independent claim 13. App. Br. 8.
Appellants’ arguments appear to be based on an assumption that Marceau’s
node 102A meets the recited “proxy registry” and “retriev[ing] addresses of
select local registries which have entries satisfying the search query” reads
on Marceau’s retrieval of the data object IDs.
The Examiner finds that the recited “proxy registry” (or “proxy” in
claim 13) reads on the peer nodes of Marceau. Ans. 5, 6, and 15. The
Examiner further finds that a peer node in Marceau receives “an access
query,” “issues a request 277 to . . . peer node 102A . . . in order to get the
data object identifiers,” and issues request 279 to retrieve the data objects
from peer node 102N.” Ans. 16.
Appeal 2010-009181
Application 11/198,806

5
We understand the Examiner’s rejection to read the recited “proxy
registry” on any particular node of Marceau. See, e.g., Ans. 16. We also
understand the Examiner’s rejection to read the “select local registries” on
Marceau’s metadata indexes. Id. Based on our understanding of the
Examiner’s rejection, we find Appellants are reading the rejection
incorrectly and thus presenting arguments that do not align with the
Examiner’s findings. In particular, Appellants’ argument that obtaining data
object IDs is not the same as retrieving “addresses of select local registries”
is irrelevant. We agree with the Examiner that Marceau teaches a first node
(read on by the recited proxy registry) receives a query, retrieves the address
of other nodes’ metadata indexes (read on by the recited local registries) of
the types of data sought, obtains data object IDs from the other nodes’
metadata indexes, and obtains the data objects from nodes storing those data
objects. Ans. 16. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 3, and 13.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that the peer node accesses only
one local registry, specifically the storage area shown as attached to the node
in Figures 1A and 2A of Marceau, and thus “Marceau does not retrieve data
objects from a plurality of local registries, such as 103B and C.” Reply 4, 5.
We do not agree with Appellants’ contention.
Each node in Marceau is described as being able to access data objects
at any of the various nodes. Figures 1A and 2A of Marceau show that each
node is connected to a local storage area and a metadata index. We note that
nothing in Marceau precludes the storage elements from being comprised of
more than one physical storage space and, moreover, Marceau explicitly
teaches that each peer node may access data objects from any other peer
Appeal 2010-009181
Application 11/198,806

6
node. See, e.g., Marceau ¶ 39 (“storage access module 211 accesses local
storage area 103A to store or retrieve data objects in response to requests
from client modules 241 on any peer node 102 in P2P data storage system
100”) (emphasis added). Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument that the peer nodes access only one local registry.

Dependent claims 6 and 16
Appellants argue Marceau does not teach “forwarding the search
query to the select local registries,” as recited in claim 6 and similarly
recited in claim 16. App. Br. 9. Specifically, Appellants assert there is no
need to forward the query in order to obtain the data objects because the
node serving as the proxy registry would already know the IDs of the data
objects. App. Br. 9.
The Examiner finds that “the metadata indexes permit query
processing module 206 to efficiently identify data objects having metadata
entries that satisfy a particular query request.” Ans. 16.
Again, we find Appellants’ argument inconsistent with our reading of
the rejection. We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Specifically,
paragraph 42 of Marceau explains that “each peer node 102 accepts client
requests and forwards them . . . . For example, to respond to an access
query . . . node 102B issues a request 277 to . . . node 102A, which holds the
metadata index for the requested type in order to get the data object
identifiers of the requested data objects.” Marceau ¶ 42 (emphasis added).
As seen from the cited portion of Marceau, if a first node (proxy) receives a
query and the first node does not have the desired metadata index (local
registry), the first node forwards the query to a second node that does have
Appeal 2010-009181
Application 11/198,806

7
the desired metadata index. Subsequently, the second node can return the
data object IDs to the first node. Thus, Appellants’ argument that the query
is not forwarded is not persuasive.

Dependent claim 7
Appellants argue Marceau does not teach a proxy “receive[s] a unique
identifier assigned to the new resource/service by the one of the select local
registries,” as recited in claim 7. App. Br. 9-10. Specifically, Appellants
contend “the node that generates the unique data object identifier (node
103B) is different from the node that stores the data object (node 102N).”
App. Br. 10 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds “peer node 102B may generate the object ID by
applying a hash function to the content of the data object to generate an
address within the data repository address space of P2P” and that the
generated “object ID . . . is used to locate peer nodes storing data objects
having that particular object ID.” Ans. 17.
We agree with Appellants’ contention. We do not see anything that
the Examiner has pointed to in Marceau teaching receiving (at the proxy
registry) a unique identifier that was generated by “the one of the select local
registries” to which the new object was published.

Dependent claims 8 and 9
Dependent claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 7. As discussed above,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 and therefore,
dependent claims 8 and 9 stand with claim 7. We need not, and therefore do
Appeal 2010-009181
Application 11/198,806

8
not, address Appellants’ individual arguments with respect to the limitations
added to those claims.

Dependent claim 26
Appellants argue Marceau does not teach “the entries comprise
information regarding different services relative to one another,” as recited
in claim 26. App. Br. 12. Specifically, Appellants argue Marceau is “void of
any reference to services” and that nothing indicates “that Marceau’s data
objects comprise information regarding different services relative to one
another.” App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds Marceau “discloses receiving request and
retrieving data objects.” Ans. 19.
Appellants argue the separate patentability of claim 26 over the
combination of Marceau and Gusack based on the information contained in
the entries. Without further functionality recited, this “information” merely
describes the content of data and thus constitutes non-functional descriptive
material. Non-functional descriptive material does not patentably distinguish
over the prior art that otherwise renders the claim unpatentable. See In re
Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Ex parte Nehls, 88
U.S.P.Q.2d 1883, 1887-89 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (discussing cases
pertaining to non-functional descriptive material). Thus, Appellants have not
apprised us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26.

Dependent claim 28
Appellants assert Marceau does not teach “the addresses do not
explicitly identify the entries,” as recited in claim 28. App. Br. 12-13. Once
Appeal 2010-009181
Application 11/198,806

9
again, Appellants’ argument is based on the assumption that the data object
identifiers received by node 102B meet the “addresses of select local
registries,” recited in claim 3. Specifically, Appellants contend Marceau
“receives data object identifiers in response to a request.” App. Br. 13
(emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds “Marceau discloses that peer node receives node
ID along with data object ID in response to a request.” Ans. 20.
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive. As found by the
Examiner, the peer node serving as the proxy registry receives node IDs,
which identify where information is stored. The peer node also obtains data
object IDs, which uniquely identify individual data objects. As discussed
above, the peer node receiving the query in Marceau determines which
nodes have the metadata indexes; therefore, the node IDs of these identified
nodes are at least a part of the addresses necessary in order to find the local
registries containing the entries sought by the query. As acknowledged by
Appellants, “the node identifiers are distinct from the data object
identifiers.” App. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). Thus, addresses comprised of
node identifiers are distinct from data object identifiers and do not explicitly
identify either the data objects or the data object identifiers.

Dependent claim 30
Appellants contend Marceau does not teach “the client system is
physically distinct from the proxy and is remotely located from the proxy
and wherein the proxy is configured to receive the search query from the
client system via a network connecting the proxy to the client system,” as
recited in claim 30. App. Br. 13-14. Specifically, Appellants argue “[c]lient-
Appeal 2010-009181
Application 11/198,806

10
side modules 241, however, are not physically distinct and remotely located
from server-side modules 245 because client-side modules 241 and server-
side modules 245 are contained by a single physical device – node 102A.”
App. Br. 13-14. Appellants further argue there is no network in Marceau that
connects the client-side modules with server side modules and that, “if
server-side modules 245 were to receive a search query from client-side
modules 241, the search query would not be received via a network.” App.
Br. 14.
The Examiner finds “Marceau discloses that each node in the system
100 has a client side and the server. Node 102A is remotely connected via
network to node 102B. So the client side of 102B is physically distinct from
the proxy node 102A and is remotely located.” Ans. 20.
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. As discussed
above, any node’s client may send a query to any node’s (including the
querying node) server. See, e.g., Marceau ¶ 39 (“storage access module 211
accesses local storage area 103A to store or retrieve data objects in response
to requests from client modules 241 on any peer node 102 in P2P data
storage system 100”) (emphasis added).

Dependent claim 31
Appellants argue Marceau does not teach “prior to the retrieving of
the addresses of the select local registries, the proxy is unaware of at least
one of the select local registries,” as recited in claim 31. App. Br. 14.
Specifically, Appellants assert paragraph 27 of Marceau “teaches nodes that
do not use a centralized or global view of the entire network, but does not
disclose that the nodes are unaware of each other.” App. Br. 14.
Appeal 2010-009181
Application 11/198,806

11
The Examiner finds that “each peer node has an associated ID” and
that the “P2P data storage system locates target node[s] in a series of node-
to-node hops without using any centralized or global view of the entire
network,” such that “during the retrieval process a Distributed Hash Table
(DHT) can be used to locate a node which was not known to the current
node.” Ans. 20.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion. Appellants
have not pointed to anything in the art or in their Specification to persuade
us the Examiner’s interpretation of the recited “the proxy is unaware of . . .
registries” is unreasonably broad or does not read on the cited portions of
Marceau.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6,
10-13, 15, 16, and 26-31 is affirmed and the Examiner’s rejection of claims
7-9 is reversed.

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc