Ex Parte Doshi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

12958412 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/958,412 12/02/2010
69316 7590 03/26/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Apurva Ashwin Doshi
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.
330623-US-NP 2987
EXAMINER
BLACK, LINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2018 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte APURV A ASHWIN DOSHI
and GRIGORY BORISOVICH LY AKHOVITSKIY 1
Appeal2017-009351
Application 12/958,412
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BETH Z. SHAW, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-8 and 21-32, all the pending
claims in the present application. Claims 9-20 are canceled. Claims
Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants name Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC as the real party
in interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2017-009351
Application 12/958,412
The present invention relates generally to data protection of files that
may include both content and embedded metadata. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method implemented at least in part by a computer, the
method comprising:
determining whether to backup a file, the file including at
least a content segment having content data and a metadata segment
having at least a value that quantifies a subjective evaluation of the
content data, the determining including:
computing a metadata hash of at least a portion of the
metadata segment of the file;
computing a content hash of at least a portion of the
content segment of the file;
determining whether the metadata has changed based at
least in part on whether the metadata hash is equal to a previously
computed metadata hash; and
determining whether the content data has changed based
at least in part on whether the content hash is equal to a previously
computed content hash; and
selectively initiating backup of the file, the selective
initiation including:
in response to determining that the content segment has
not changed and that the metadata segment has changed, not initiating
backup of the file; and
in response to determining that the content segment has
changed and that the metadata segment has not changed, initiating
backup of the file.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
RI. Claims 1--4, 6, 7, 21-24, 26, 27, 29, 31, and 32 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dodd (US 2008/0034268 Al,
Feb. 7, 2008) and Srinivas (US 2005/0091271 Al, Apr. 28, 2005) (Non-
Final Act. 3-13); and
R2. Claims 5, 8, 25, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
2
Appeal2017-009351
Application 12/958,412
as being unpatentable over Dodd, Srinivas, and Blmnenau (US
2006/0106813 Al, May 18, 2006) (Non-Final Act. 14--15); and
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 1, 4-8, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 27-32
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Dodd teaches or suggests
determining that the content segment has not changed and the metadata
segment has changed, as set forth in claim 1?
Appellants contend that the Office Action "did not address basing any
action, or lack thereof, on different change determinations for 'the content
segment' and 'the metadata segment' (e.g., where one segment was
determined to have 'changed' while the other was determined to have 'not
changed')" in the Dodd findings (App. Br. 9) because Dodd "fails to address
... multiple determinations for initiating backup" (id. at 11 ).
In response, the Examiner finds that in Dodd "if the metadata
portion/segment has changed and the content segment has not changed,
[there is] no need to initiate a backup of the file [and] if the content portion
has changed, do backup the file" (Ans. 5, citing Dodd i-fi-120, 21, 24, and 59).
We agree with the Examiner.
3
Appeal2017-009351
Application 12/958,412
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to
the following points of emphasis.
For example, Dodd discloses:
In one arrangement, one or more hash codes may be associated with
the metadata associated with a given file and another hash code may
be generated for the content of the file.
(Dodd ii 16).
For instance each individual file in a data set may include a first hash
associated with metadata (e.g. an identifier hash) and a second hash
associated with its content (e.g., a content hash). Once generated, the
signature including the first hashes and the content hashes may be
utilized individually and/or in combination to identify changes
between first data set and a subsequent data set.
(Id. ii 20).
In one arrangement, if an identifier hash of the second data set does
not match an identifier hash of the first data set, content associated
with the unmatched identifier hash may be compared to content of the
first data set .... the resulting content hash code may be compared to
content hash codes associated with the first data set. In this regard,
even if the identifier of the content does not match an identifier in the
first data set, a second check may be performed to determine if the
content already exist in the first data set. If the content hash code
exists, the content may not be transmitted to a storage location or
other wise stored.
(Id. ii 21; see also ii 59).
In other words, Dodd discloses that both the hash codes for the
metadata and the hash codes for the content may be used in combination to
identify changes and when to store the data, i.e., different change
4
Appeal2017-009351
Application 12/958,412
determinations for the metadata and the content, such as when the content
has not changed but the metadata has changed, or vice versa.
Thus, we find unavailing Appellants' contention that Dodd "fails to
address ... multiple determinations for initiating backup" (App. Br. 11 ),
given the aforementioned disclosures in Dodd.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellants' arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 21 and 27 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellants
do not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims, except as noted
below. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4--8,
21, 22, 24, 25, and 27-32.
Claims 2 and 2 3
Regarding claim 2 (and claim 23), Appellants contend that "Dodd's
paragraphs [0049], [0050], and [0053] .... are generally directed to use of
compression technology .... [h ]owever, there is simply no disclosure or
suggestion of ... the claimed relationship of 'the selected quantity being
less than a compression block size"' (App. Br. 13).
Although the Examiner finds that "Dodd teaches data sets are stored
in compressed format, the 'selected quantity of data' is thus smaller than the
compression block size of the received data set to be backed up" (Ans. 7),
we note that this is not what the claims require. For instance, claim 2
requires, inter alia, "the selected quantity [of data] being less than a
compression block size of a compression algorithm that is to be employed
for the backup (see claim 2), not less than the size of the received data set,
as concluded by the Examiner. We agree with Appellants that the
5
Appeal2017-009351
Application 12/958,412
Examiner's "rationale improperly equates the claimed 'compression block
size' with Dodd's 'received data set"' (Reply Br. 3). As a result, even if
correct, the Examiner's findings are not consistent with the actual claim
language.
Therefore, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2, and claim 23 for similar reasons.
Claims 3 and 2 6
Regarding claim 3 (and claim 26), Appellants contend that "the
applied references do not disclose or suggest 'computing the content hash
based on a selected quantity of data, the selected quantity being based on a
file extension ofthe file"' (App. Br. 13). Appellants further contend that
"the policies of Dodd's paragraph [0063] are 'storage policies' ... not
relevant to the claimed 'selected quantity of data [for computing the content
hash.]"' (Reply Br. 4 ).
Although the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Dodd teaches
"different policies may be selected for different data types" (Ans. 8-9)
(emphasis omitted), these policies are related to "storage," not hashes.
Specifically, Dodd discloses "a storage policy is selected 8 for
archiving the data .... different policies may be selected for different data
types .... Once a policy is selected 9,[] the metadata that is outlined above is
utilized to compute a hash for the baseline reference objects" (i-f 63). In
other words, as highlighted by Appellants, Dodd's policies, which look at
data type, merely relate to archiving, not computing the content hash.
Instead, Dodd uses metadata to do the hashing, and the Examiner has not
6
Appeal2017-009351
Application 12/958,412
shown that such metadata is based on a file extension, as required by the
claims.
Therefore, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3, and claim 26 for similar reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 3, 23, and
26.
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 4--8, 21, 22,
24, 25, and 27-32.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7