Ex Parte Dhuse et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2016

11973542 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111973,542 10/09/2007
89322 7590 10/28/2016
Garlick & Markison (IBM)
ATTN: MELANIE MURDOCK
P.O.Box 160727
Austin, TX 78716
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Greg Dhuse
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CS00004 1732
EXAMINER
GUYTON, PHILIP A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2113
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2016 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):
MMURDOCK@TEXASPATENTS.COM
ghmptocor@texaspatents.com
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREG DHUSE, VANCE THORNTON, JASON RESCH,
IL YA VOL VOVSKI, DUSTY HENDRICKSON, and JOHN QUIGLEY
Appeal2015-005539
Application 11/973,542 1
Technology Center 2100
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-16, which are all the claims pending in
this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Cleversafe, Inc. Br. 2.
2 Claims 2 and 12 have been cancelled. Br. 17, 21 (Claims App'x).
Appeal2015-005539
Application 11/973,542
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to distributed data storage using an
information dispersal algorithm such that no single location stores an entire
copy of particular data. Spec. ,-i 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal and reads as follows:
1. A method of ensuring data integrity in a dispersed data
storage network comprising the steps of:
i) calculating a first checksum for a data segment to be
written to said dispersed data storage network;
ii) appending said first checksum to said data segment,
thereby forming a certified data segment;
iii) performing an error correcting information dispersal
algorithm on said certified data segment, thereby forming a
plurality of data slices;
iv) calculating a plurality of second checksums for said
plurality of data slices;
v) appending said plurality of second checksums to said
plurality of data slices, so that the appropriate second checksum
is appended to the appropriate data slice, thereby forming a
plurality of certified data slices; and
vi) transmitting said certified data slices to a plurality of
slice servers.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shu (US 2003/0084020 Al; May 1, 2003) and Lin (US
5,832,000; Nov. 3, 1998). Final Act. 2-10.
2
Appeal2015-005539
Application 11/973,542
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because Lin
does not teach or suggest a "data segment" and a "data slice," as recited in
claim 1. Br. 6-12. In particular, Appellants argue Lin teaches applying an
information dispersal algorithm (IDA) to a message to produce an error
tolerant message. Br. 7. Appellants argue Lin teaches error detection data is
added to the groups of by-products, which are made only after performing an
IDA. Id. Appellants further argue Lin "clearly differentiates" between a
data message before applying an IDA (a claimed "data segment") and after
applying an IDA (a claimed "data slice"). Br. 8. Appellants contend Lin
does not teach applying error detection data to messages before applying an
IDA and, therefore, only teaches applying error correction data to a "data
slice," not to a "data segment" as claimed. Id.
The Examiner finds Lin teaches a first byproduct 404 (a "data
segment") that includes a CRC. Ans. 3 (citing Fig. 4). The Examiner finds
Lin further teaches applying IDA to the first byproduct to create a second set
of byproducts 410 ("data slices"). Id.; Lin 4:6-19.
3
Appeal2015-005539
Application 11/973,542
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. Appellants'
argument relies on an interpretation of "data segment" that excludes
messages upon which an IDA has been performed. Br. 9. Appellants'
interpretation is overly narrow. First, nothing in claim 1 precludes a "data
segment" from being the result of performing an IDA on a message.
Second, as noted by the Examiner, Appellants' Specification does not define
the term "data segment" to preclude a "data segment" from being the result
of performing an IDA. Ans. 3--4. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of "data segment" includes a message upon which an IDA has
already been performed. Applying this broadest reasonable interpretation,
we agree with the Examiner that Lin teaches or suggests both the "data
segment" and "data slice" limitations. Id. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Claim 4
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 because the
Examiner's rejection is conclusory and provides insufficient reasoning to
support the rejection. Br. 12-14.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
identified portions of Shu and Lin that correspond to each limitation of claim
4 with pinpoint citations. Final Act. 5. Although the Examiner did not set
forth explicit reasoning for combining Shu and Lin in the rejection of claim
4, the Examiner explained why an ordinarily skilled artisan would combine
Shu and Lin in the rejection of claim 1 and stated in the rejection of claim 4
that "modified Shu" discloses various claim limitations, thus incorporating
the rejection of claim 1 into the rejection of claim 4. Id. at 2-5.
4
Appeal2015-005539
Application 11/973,542
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Shu and Lin. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim
1. We also sustain the rejections of claims 3, 5-11, 13, 15, and 16, which
were not argued separately with particularity. See Br. 12, 14, 15.
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 as
unpatentable over Shu and Lin. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim
4. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14 for the same
reasons as claim 4. See Br. 15. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of
claim 14.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-11, and
13-16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5