Ex Parte Fineberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2014

11796674 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SAMUEL A. FINEBERG and ARTHUR BRITTO
____________

Appeal 2012-000043
Application 11/796,674
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention stores, retrieves, and reconstructs files and data
in a client-server storage system. In particular, files are divided into chunks
or segments and corresponding hash values are computed. An index is
created that maps the hash values to corresponding file segments that are
Appeal 2012-000043
Application 11/796,674

2
used to reconstruct the file by determining which segments are stored in the
client computer’s file system, and which are stored on a remote storage
device. See generally Spec. ¶¶ 0020-45. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for software execution, comprising:
dividing files into segments;
calculating hash values for the segments;
creating an index that maps each of the hash values to
corresponding segments within the files;
reconstructing a file by referencing the index to
determine which segments of the file are stored in the file
system of the client computer but not stored remotely on a
storage device and which segments of the file are stored
remotely on the storage device but not in the file system of the
client computer.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Frank (US 2007/0136200 A1; published June 14, 2007; filed
Dec. 9, 2005), Lev-Ran (US 7,636,767 B2; issued Dec. 22, 2009; filed Nov.
29, 2005), Hager (US 2007/0226320 A1; published Sept. 27, 2007; filed
Dec. 11, 2006), and Liu (US 2007/0174351 A1; published July 26, 2007;
filed Mar. 19, 2007). Ans. 3-12.1

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Frank divides files into segments and
calculates segment hash values, but does not create an index that maps each

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed February 7,
2011 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 29, 2011
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed June 29, 2011 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2012-000043
Application 11/796,674

3
hash value to corresponding segments. Ans. 4. The Examiner, however,
cites Lev-Ran as teaching this feature. Id. Although the Examiner
acknowledges that Frank and Lev-Ran do not reconstruct a file by
referencing the index to determine which file segments are stored in the
client computer’s file system but not stored remotely and vice-versa, the
Examiner cites Hager and Liu as collectively teaching this limitation in
concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 5-6, 13-14.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance on Hager and Liu for
the recited file reconstruction step is misplaced because both the client
computer and remote storage device in those references store an entire copy
of a file for comparison. App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2-3. This scheme is said
to differ from the claimed invention that reconstructs a file from different
hashed segments, where some segments are stored at the client computer and
other segments stored at the remote storage device. Id. Appellants also
argue the limitations of various other claims summarized below.

ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Frank, Lev-Ran,
Hager, and Liu collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) reconstructing a file by referencing an index to determine which
segments of a file are stored in a file system of a client computer but not
stored remotely on a storage device and vice-versa as recited in claim 1?
(2) storing (a) a first portion of a file’s hashed chunks in a client
computer’s file system and not a remote storage device, and (b) a second
portion of the hashed chunks in the remote storage device but not in the
client computer as recited in independent claim 7?
Appeal 2012-000043
Application 11/796,674

4
(3) receiving, at the client computer, segments of the file stored on the
storage device, and concatenating segments of the file stored on the storage
device and in the file system to reconstruct the file as recited in claim 2?
(4) combining segments stored in the client computer with segments
only stored in the storage device to reconstruct the file as recited in claim 4?
(5) storing each segment only once in the storage device even when
two or more different files have a same segment as recited in claim 5?
(6) retrieving and combining first and second portions of segments
from the storage device and client computer, respectively, to reconstruct the
file as recited in claim 6?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, and 14-19
We begin by noting that the Examiner’s reliance on Frank and
Lev-Ran for teaching the first three limitations of representative claim 1 is
undisputed, as is the combinability of the four cited references. Rather, this
dispute turns on the Examiner’s reliance on Hager and Liu in connection
with the recited file reconstruction step.
Notably, this step reconstructs a file by referencing an index to
determine the storage location of the file’s segments, but does not actually
determine this location. Rather, the “to determine” language merely recites
a desired determination result that need not occur. Therefore, Appellants’
contention that “[t]he claim recites that the file is reconstruct[ed] by
determining which segments of the file are stored . . .” (Reply Br. 2;
emphasis added) is not commensurate with the scope of the claim that does
not require this determination.
Appeal 2012-000043
Application 11/796,674

5
Turning to the rejection, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance
on the functionality associated with Hager’s calculated differential portions
in connection with the recited file reconstruction. Ans. 5, 13-14. In Hager,
caching devices are connected between client and server that not only store
one or more versions of files, but also portions of files or “blocks” that are
transferred between client and server. Hager ¶ 0006. If a client requests a
file corresponding to a non-updated version, the caching device can calculate
a differential portion (“Delta” or “Diff”) allowing the client to reconstruct
the requested file using the differential portion and the non-updated version.
Id. Notably, differential portions can be calculated on a block-by-block
basis and sent to a remote site requesting access to an associated file. Id.
¶ 0007. In some embodiments, the requested file can be reconstructed at the
remote site based on these differential portions. Id. ¶ 0008.
As the Examiner explains, these differential portions are segments that
correspond to updated portions of the requested file. Ans. 14. Because
these differential segments are sent from a caching device to a remote site
that requests an associated file for reconstruction, this functionality at least
suggests that at least these differential segments are stored remotely on the
storage device (i.e., caching device) and not on the client computer before
this transfer. See Hager ¶ 0007-08.
We reach the same conclusion for the remaining segments
corresponding to the non-updated version of the file in Hager, for these
segments would either be sent from the remote caching device to the client
computer or previously stored in the client computer. See Hager ¶¶ 0006-08.
In either case, the associated reconstruction would at least enable
determining where those segments are stored. And even assuming, without
Appeal 2012-000043
Application 11/796,674

6
deciding, that these remaining segments associated with the non-updated file
are stored in both the remote cache and the client computer in some
scenarios in Hager, that would still enable determining that no such
segments are stored in one location and not the other.
In any event, skilled artisans would recognize that there could be other
scenarios where these remaining segments in Hager are deleted from the
cache after transfer to save storage space, particularly since these segments
reflect an older version of the file. See Hager ¶¶ 0006-08; see also Liu
¶ 0041 (noting that Client 1 discards the “diff” and its stored file Version A
after updating); Ans. 6 (citing this paragraph). Such a scenario, resulting in
storing some segments at a remote storage device (i.e., the differential
portion) and other segments at the client computer (the non-updated
portion), is at least an obvious variation in view of these teachings that
yields a predictable result. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
421 (2007).
To the extent that Appellants contend that Hager’s reconstruction does
not reference an index that maps hash values to segments (see Reply Br. 2-
3), Appellants do not address—let alone persuasively rebut—the Examiner’s
reliance on Hager’s hash-based index used in connection with reconstruction
using a Delta algorithm. See Ans. 14 (citing Hager ¶¶ 0193-95). Nor do
Appellants persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on the other cited
references in connection with the recited index.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 3 and 14-19 not argued separately with
particularity.

Appeal 2012-000043
Application 11/796,674

7
Claims 7-13
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 7
reciting, in pertinent part, storing (1) a first portion of a file’s hashed chunks
in a client computer’s file system and not a remote storage device, and (2) a
second portion of the hashed chunks in the remote storage device but not in
the client computer. Although claim 1 does not explicitly recite storing
hashed chunks as Appellants indicate (App. Br. 13), the Examiner
nonetheless finds that the limitations of claim 7 are commensurate with
those in claim 1. See Ans. 15 (equating claim 7’s dividing a file into hashed
chunks with the first three limitations of claim 1).
We see no error in this position, particularly in view of the fact that
the “segments” recited in claim 1 are synonymous with the “chunks” recited
in claim 7. See Spec. ¶ 0016 (“[T]he term ‘chunking’ means dividing or
separating . . . a file into plural smaller units, segments, or chunks.”)
(emphasis added). Given this correspondence, we see no error in the
Examiner’s reliance on the cited references’ collective teachings in
connection with the recited storing limitation for the reasons noted
previously in connection with claim 1 and by the Examiner.
Appellants’ arguments regarding Lev-Ran’s alleged shortcomings in
two passages from columns 6 and 7 (App. Br. 13-14) are inapposite, for the
Examiner did not rely on these passages to reject claims 1 and 7. Compare
Ans. 4 (citing different passages from Lev-Ran). In any event, Appellants’
individual attack on Lev-Ran does not show nonobviousness where, as here,
the obviousness rejection is based on the cited references’ collective
teachings. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appeal 2012-000043
Application 11/796,674

8
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 7, and claims 8-13 not argued separately with
particularity.

Claim 2
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 reciting, in
pertinent part, (1) receiving, at the client computer, segments of the file
stored on the storage device, and (2) concatenating segments of the file
stored on the storage device and in the file system to reconstruct the file. In
the Specification, Appellants refer to reconstructing chunked files by
concatenating or linking file chunks in the correct order. Spec. ¶¶ 0016,
0041.
Appellants (App. Br. 14-15) do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
reliance on Lev-Ran for teaching concatenating received data chunks or
segments with those previously stored. Ans. 6-7, 16 (citing Lev-Ran, col.
20, ll. 39-41; col. 23, ll. 8-56). We see no error in this reliance, particularly
when considered with Hager’s reconstructing files based on received
segments that skilled artisans would recognize involves linking or
concatenating those segments with those previously stored. See Hager
¶¶ 0006-08.

Claims 4 and 6
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 reciting
combining segments stored in the client computer with segments only stored
in the storage device to reconstruct the file. Despite Appellants’ arguments
to the contrary (App. Br. 15), we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Appeal 2012-000043
Application 11/796,674

9
Lev-Ran’s concatenating short data chunks and maintaining an index for
mapping signatures and data values for teaching the recited combining step
(Ans. 7, 16-17 (citing Lev-Ran, col. 20, ll. 39-41; col. 23, ll. 8-56)),
particularly when considered with Hager’s reconstructing files based on
received segments that skilled artisans would recognize involves combining
those segments with those previously stored. See Hager ¶¶ 0006-08.
We reach a similar conclusion regarding the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 6 that recites retrieving and combining first and second portions of
segments from the storage device and client computer, respectively, to
reconstruct the file. Ans. 7, 18.

Claim 5
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 reciting storing
each segment only once in the storage device even when two or more
different files have a same segment. The Examiner interprets this limitation
in connection with the differential portions in Hager and their lacking
duplicate data. Ans. 17 (citing Hager ¶¶ 0007-08). Appellants do not
squarely address—let alone persuasively rebut—the Examiner’s
interpretation in this regard despite arguing that the entire file and updates
are stored on caching devices in Hager. App. Br. 16. Accordingly, the
weight of the evidence on this record favors the Examiner’s position.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-19 under § 103.

Appeal 2012-000043
Application 11/796,674

10
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19 is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

msc