Ex Parte Guo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2018

13927180 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/927,180 06/26/2013 Katherine H. Guo 813802-US-NP 2001
46363 7590 03/01/2018
Tong, Rea, Bentley & Kim, LLC
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
12 Christopher Way
Suite 105
Eatontown, NJ 07724
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KIM T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2018 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):
docketing @ trbklaw .com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KATHERINE H. GUO and THOMAS WOO
Appeal 2017-006381
Application 13/927,180
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, JOHN A. EVANS, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20. App. Br. 5.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Alcatel Lucent, which is
part of Nokia according to Appellants. App. Br. 3.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Non-Final Rejection (“Non-Final
Act.”) mailed May 19, 2016, the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed October 17,
2016, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed January 11, 2017, and the
Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed March 13, 2017.
Appeal 2017-006381
Application 13/927,180
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention reduces data duplication in network-based file
systems. Spec. 1:4—6. One embodiment uses a file-transfer-and-reference
synchronization protocol to transfer a file from a source data-storage
element to a target data-storage element. Id. at 29:1—4. In this protocol, the
source first sends a reference to a “reference file.” Id. at 30:11—21. A
reference file is identical to the file to be transferred. Id. at 29:30—31. After
receiving the reference, the target then determines whether the
corresponding reference file is stored locally. Id. at 30:22—23. If the target
is not storing the file, the target requests the reference file from the source.
Id. at 30:25—28. This protocol reduces bandwidth overhead because the
data-storage element only requests files and chunks as they are needed.
Id. at 29:8—13. Moreover, a data chunk can be compressed to further
minimize storage costs. Id. at 4:10—14.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Hamilton et al. US 2010/0318759 A1 Dec. 16,2010
Weissflog US 9,262,436 B2 Feb. 16,2016
Claims 1—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hamilton and Weissflog. Non-Final Act. 2—6.
Claims 11—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Hamilton. See App. Br. 11,3
3 In the rejection mailed August 21, 2015, on pages 5 through 12, the
Examiner rejected claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). The Examiner
then withdrew this rejection after Appellants filed an Appeal brief on
November 30, 2015. Non-Final Act. 2. On May 19, 2016, the rejection
2
Appeal 2017-006381
Application 13/927,180
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
Claims 11—20
Claim 11 is reproduced below with our emphasis:
11. An apparatus, comprising:
a processor and a memory communicatively connected to
the processor, the processor configured to:
receive, from a data storage element, a file comprising
metadata and file contents, wherein the file has original file
contents associated therewith, wherein the original file contents
comprise a set of data chunks; and
based on a determination that the file does not include a
reference to a reference file comprising a form of the original file
contents of the file, initiate a process to ensure that the set of data
chunks of the original file contents of the file is present within a
data chunk store comprising data chunks for one or more stored
files.
The Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner finds that Hamilton discloses every recited element of
claim 11. Non-Final Act. 7—8. In particular, the Examiner finds that
Hamilton’s lookup component performs the recited determination when
identifying which blocks are not in a chunk store. Ans. 5 (Hamilton H 33,
40).
Appellants ’ Contentions
Appellants argue that Hamilton does not determine that a file lacks a
reference to the recited reference file and does not perform any action based
on this condition. App. Br. 17—18; Reply Br. 4—6. According to Appellants,
stated that claims 1—20 were rejected under § 103(a), but the Examiner only
cited Hamilton in the rejection of claims 10—20. Id. at 6—11. Appellants met
with the Examiner to clarify that claims 10—20 remained rejected under
§ 102(a)(1), not § 103(a). App. Br. 11. Accordingly, for the purposes of this
appeal, we also treat claims 10-20 as rejected under § 102(a)(1).
3
Appeal 2017-006381
Application 13/927,180
Hamilton merely discloses a differential compression technique.
App. Br. 17 (citing Hamilton || 25—26). In Appellants’ view, Hamilton
checks for a different condition than the one recited. Reply Br. 5.
Issue
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Hamilton
discloses initiating the recited process “based on a determination that the file
does not include a reference to a reference file comprising a form of the
original file contents of the file,” as recited in claim 11?
Analysis
We agree with the Examiner that Hamilton’s lookup component 206
performs the recited determination. Non-Final Act. 8 (citing
Hamilton || 25—26, 33); see also Ans. 5 (discussing lookup component 206
and Hamilton H 33, 40). Notably, Appellants’ argument does not squarely
address, let alone persuasively rebut, the Examiner’s reliance on Hamilton’s
disclosure in paragraph 33. See App. Br. 17 (citing Hamilton || 25—26).
In particular, Hamilton divides a file into chunks—e.g., segments or
blocks. Hamilton 126. Thus, like the recited reference file, Hamilton’s
chunks are a form of the file’s original contents. See id. Hamilton discloses
a remote differential compression (RDC) process that transfers files between
a client and a chunk store. See id. To minimize the amount of data
transferred, the RDC process identifies and transfers “unique” chunks, or
blocks—i.e., those not in the chunk store. Id.', see also id 137.
Like the recited determination, Hamilton’s lookup component 206
determines that a file does not include a reference to a chunk (the recited
“reference file”). See id. 133. In particular, Hamilton’s machines maintain
pointers to the chunks’ locations in the network or cloud storage. Id. 140;
4
Appeal 2017-006381
Application 13/927,180
see also id. 145. Lookup component 206 determines whether any client
machine points to a particular chunk in the chunk store. See id. 1133,40.
Hamilton’s lookup component 206 can then declare a chunk present or
absent from the chunk store. Id. 26, 40; see also id. 136 (discussing
absent chunks). For example, Hamilton’s client machines create new
chunks not already in the chunk store, and these unique blocks have no
pointers to them. See id. ]Hf 26, 40. By identifying these unique blocks,
Hamilton’s lookup component 206 determines that a file does not include a
pointer (the recited “reference”) to a chunk. See id. 33, 40, cited in
Ans. 5.
In response to this determination, Hamilton stores the unique
chunks—i.e., chunks that are not stored and lack pointers. Hamilton 126;
see also id. 137 (discussing storage component 402). In this way, Hamilton
initiates a process to ensure that chunks are present in the chunk store, as
recited in claim 11. See id. 126. On this record, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument that Hamilton does not determine the recited condition
or initiate the recited process in response to this condition. Reply Br. 4—6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 11 and dependent claims 12—20, which are not separately argued with
particularity (see App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 5—6 (discussing claim 1 l’s
dependent claims)).
5
Appeal 2017-006381
Application 13/927,180
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Claims 1—10
Claim 1 is representative of claims 1—10.4 Claim 1 is reproduced
below with our emphasis:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a processor and a memory communicatively connected to
the processor, the processor configured to:
receive a file comprising original file contents;
determine a set of data chunks of the original file
contents of the file and a respective set of hash values of
the data chunks;
determine whether the data chunks are stored in a
data chunk store comprising a set of data chunks for one
or more stored files;
encode the original file contents of the file, to form
an encoded form of the original file contents of the file,
based on the hash values of the data chunks;
compress the encoded form of the original file
contents of the file to form a compressed and encodedform
of the original file contents of the file; and
store the compressed and encoded form of the
original file contents of the file.
The Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner finds that Hamilton teaches every limitation of claim 1
except the encoding, compressing, and storing functions. Non-Final Act. 3—
4. For these limitations, the Examiner turns to Weissflog in concluding that
the claim would have been obvious. Id. In particular, the Examiner finds
that Weissflog’s steps of setting up a virtual file system involves encoding
and compressing files. Id. (citing Weissflog Fig. 2, 3:55^4:53). The
4 Appellants argue claims 1—10 together. See App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 4
(discussing claim 10 the dependent claims). We, therefore, select claim 1 as
representative.
6
Appeal 2017-006381
Application 13/927,180
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use Weissflog’s
compression and encoding on Hamilton’s data to reduce data traffic and
optimize the data exchange. Non-Final Act. 4.
Appellants ’ Contentions
According to Appellants, Weissflog lacks the recited encoding and
compressing steps. App. Br. 14—16; Reply Br. 2-4. Appellants argue that
the cited portions of Weissflog are directed to a general process for encoding
file-system information. App. Br. 14 (citing Weissflog 2:33—38; 3:56—62).
According to Appellants, the Examiner’s rejection does not address the
claimed features, and Weissflog does not mention compressing an encoded
form. App. Br. 12—13. In Appellants’ view, Weissflog’s process merely
provides a key by processing a file that includes an encoded value. Id. at 16;
Reply Br. 2-A.
Issue
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Hamilton and
Weissflog, collectively, encode the original file and compress the encoded
form for storage, as recited in representative claim 1?
Analysis
We are unconvinced that the Examiner’s reliance on Weissflog is in
error. See Non-Final Act. 2—A. Specifically, the Examiner relies on
Weissflog for the limited purpose of teaching the compressing, encoding,
and storing features. Id. Regarding these features, Weissflog’s system
processes encoded file-system information. See Weissflog 3:56—60.
Initially, a file directory is provided with multiple subdirectories. Id. at 4:1—
3. Weissflog compresses and encodes each subdirectory content file.
Id. Fig. 2, step 22. From this information, Weissflog then creates a single
7
Appeal 2017-006381
Application 13/927,180
directory content file. Id. Fig. 2, step 23. Therefore, like the recited
encoding, Weissflog encodes the original subdirectory file. See id.
After this encoding, Weissflog further compresses the directory
content file. Id. at 4:25—33, Fig. 2, step 24. Like the recited compress
function, Weissflog compresses the encoded form of the original
subdirectory file, which is the directory content file. See id. Finally, the
process then stores the compressed and encoded form as a root directory
key. Id. at 4:36-40, Fig. 2, step 25. On this record, the Examiner has shown
that Weissflog teaches the recited compressing, encoding, and storing
features. See Non-Final Act. 3^4.
Even if Weissflog compresses, encodes, and stores data that is
different from the recited data, Appellants’ argument regarding Weissflog
does not take into account the Examiner’s reliance on Hamilton for the
recited data. See App. Br. 14—16; Reply Br. 2-4. In particular, Appellants
argue that Weissflog does not encode a chunk’s hash values. See, e.g.,
Reply Br. 2. The Examiner, however, relies on the collective teachings of
Weissflog and Hamilton to address this feature (see Non-Final Act. 3 4).
That is, the Examiner relies on Hamilton for teaching determining a set of
hash values and chunks. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner then proposes
using Weissflog’s compression and encoding on Hamilton’s data. Id. at 3^4.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when
the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Appellants’ individual attack on Weissflog (App.
Br. 14; Reply Br. 2—3) is unpersuasive.
8
Appeal 2017-006381
Application 13/927,180
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, independent claim 10, and dependent claims 2—9, which are not
separately argued with particularity (see App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 4
(discussing claim 10 and the dependent claims)).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20.
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
9