Ex Parte Chang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2014

11945358 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2014)

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.
11/945,358 11/27/2007 Meng-Chun Chang 14233.162 7233
21999 7590 11/26/2014
KIRTON MCCONKIE
60 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE
SUITE 1800
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111
EXAMINER
KOROBOV, VITALI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2014 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 MENG-CHUN CHANG and HUNG-WEN YU
___________

Appeal 2012-008383
Application 11/945,358
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1 and 4–13
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 5. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “a method and a system for distributing
and accessing data, and more particularly to a method and a system for
distributing and accessing data shared via a network system.” Specification
1.

Appeal 2012-008383
Application 11/945,358
2

Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A data distributing and accessing method for sharing a
file via a network system, comprising steps of:

dividing the file into a plurality of blocks;

duplicating each of the blocks into a plurality of block
copies;

distributing the block copies in a plurality of data hosts
interconnected via the network system, and each of the data
hosts containing the copies of more than one of the blocks while
missing the copy of at least one of the blocks;

one of the data hosts receiving a file-reading request from
a user host and issuing collecting requests to other data hosts to
collect block copies covering each of the blocks from the data
hosts; and

transferring the collected block copies from the data
hosts to the user host to be combined into the file.

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1 and 4–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
anticipated by Bruce Bobier, “BitTorrent’s Transfer Optimizations”
published October 12, 2005. Answer 4–8.

ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 26, 2011) and the Answer
(mailed January 31, 2012).
Appellants contend Bobier fails to disclose distributing the block
copies of a file in a plurality of data hosts, wherein each data host contains
Appeal 2012-008383
Application 11/945,358
3

copies of more than one of the blocks while missing a copy of a least one of
the blocks as required in claim 1. Appeal Brief 11.
The Examiner finds Bobier teaches the distribution limitation of claim
1 because Bobier discloses the operation of a local peer; Bobier’s definition
of “leecher;” and that “some pieces do not exist anywhere in the active peer
set.” Answer 4–5; Bobier’s page 1, column 2, paragraph 4.
The Examiner maps claim 1’s distributing limitation to Bobier’s
operation of a local peer without specificity and therefore it is not apparent
how Bobier’s local peer operation anticipates claim 1’s distributing
limitation. Appellants contend Bobier’s leecher definition1 fails to support
the Examiner’s findings because “a leecher as defined in Bobier, even if
missing some pieces, intends to collect block copies rather than provide
block copies.” Appeal Brief 11. We find Appellants’ contention persuasive.
Appellants further contend:
Bobier does not state that some pieces do not exist “anywhere.”
Instead, Bobier states that some pieces do not exist elsewhere
in the active peer set. When properly read in context, Bobier’s
disclosure refers to a seed which possess a complete copy of the
file and thereby possesses pieces that do not exist elsewhere in
a subset of remote peers. Nowhere does Bobier disclose the
feature “each of the data hosts containing the copies of more
than one of the blocks while missing the copy of at least one of
the blocks” as recited in the present claim 1.

Id. at 11–12 (footnote omitted).
Appellants further contend the Examiner erred because Bobier
“defines a super seed as a seed masquerading as a peer with no data, when in
truth the super seed has a complete copy of the data file.” Appeal Brief 13;

1 “A client node who is downloading a given file.” Bobier, page 4.
Appeal 2012-008383
Application 11/945,358
4

see Bobier, page 2, column 2, paragraph 6. We find Appellants’ contention
persuasive because Bobier does not disclose where “each of the data hosts
containing the copies of more than one of the blocks while missing the copy
of at least one of the blocks” as recited in claim 1.2 (Emphasis added.)
Therefore, the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 4–13 is
reversed for the reasons articulated above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 4–13 is
reversed.

REVERSED

tj

2 “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).