Ex Parte Gupta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2016

12964780 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/964,780 12/10/2010
40412 7590 08/29/2016
IBM CORPORATION-AUSTIN (JVL)
C/O LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN
6123 PEBBLE GARDEN CT.
AUSTIN, TX 78739
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shweta Gupta
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.
AUS920100458US1 5410
EXAMINER
ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 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):
leslie@vI-patents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHWETA GUPTA, ABHINA YR. NAGP AL,
PAMELA A. NESBITT, and SANDEEP R. PATIL
Appeal2015-004211
Application 12/964,780
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 11, 14--23, and 28-36. Claims 1-10, 12, 13, and 24--27 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-004211
Application 12/964,780
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
11. A software product comprising a non-transitory machine
readable medium including a program of instructions for storing
an immutable file with an immutable status indicating that the
immutable file should not be deleted or modified until an expiry
date is reached, wherein the program of instructions upon being
executed on a computer causes the computer to perform activities
compnsmg:
detecting the immutable file;
determining the expiry date of said immutable file,
wherein the expiry date is a date at which an immutability status
of the file changes and the file is no longer required to be
maintained in storage;
analyzing available storage space to determine a suitable
storage location; and
storing the immutable file in said suitable storage location;
wherein an estimated storage life of said suitable storage
location accommodates said expiry date with a remammg
expected life that extends beyond the expiry date.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 11, 17-19, 21, 22, 32 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Oliveira (US 2009/0112789 Al;
Apr. 30, 2009) and Ohr (US 7 ,680,830 B 1; Mar. 16, 2010).
Claims 14--16, 20, 23, 28-31, 33-34 and 36 are rejected 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Oliveira, Ohr, and Prahlad (US
2010/0332479 Al; Dec. 30, 2010).
2
Appeal2015-004211
Application 12/964,780
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in the rejection of independent
claims 11, 21, and 32 because Oliveira and Ohr fail to teach or suggest an
immutable file that "should not be deleted or modified until an expiry date is
reached," as claimed. Br. 5-10. Specifically, Appellants argue Oliveira
describes immutable files as write protected but does not state whether
"immutable state write-protected files can, or cannot, be deleted." Br. 6.
Further, Appellants argue Ohr teaches files that may have immutable
attributes but does not teach immutable files. Br. 7-8. In addition,
Appellants argue "Ohr's 'expiration date' has nothing to do with whether the
file is prevented from deletion before its expiration date" (Br. 9) and Ohr
teaches away from the claimed invention because Ohr encourages the
deletion of files to free up storage space (Br. 10-11 ).
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive and agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Ohr and Oliveira teaches or suggests the
inventions of independent claims 11, 21, and 32. See Ans. 3-5. As cited by
the Examiner, Ohr teaches "lifecycle-managed files [that] are deleted or
otherwise properly handled on or after their respective expiration dates."
Ans. 5 (quoting Ohr col. 2, 11. 31-34). Contrary to Appellants' arguments
that Ohr "encourages the deletion of files" and is not concerned with files
being deleted before their expiration (Br. 10-11 ), Ohr expressly recognizes
that it is often important for certain files to be kept for a specified period of
time, after which the files can be deleted. Ohr col. 1, 11. 21---63 (explaining,
for example, "the electronic documents of an entity may need to be retained
for a period for legal reasons, but the organization may wish to delete them
after that time has elapsed"); cf Spec. i-f 2 ("It is often important to keep
3
Appeal2015-004211
Application 12/964,780
certain files and data for a given length of time."). Additionally, contrary to
Appellants' arguments regarding Ohr' s disclosures of immutable attributes,
we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill would understand
the immutable attributes reflect Ohr' s teachings regarding the importance of
retaining certain files until the file's expiration date. See Ans. 3---6.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that Phahlad fails
to teach or suggest the limitations of dependent claims 20, 23, and 36 that
recite a cloud storage space that includes a plurality of storage technologies
including racetrack, phase change, solid state disk, and hard disk drive and
maintaining a list of available cloud storage locations. Br. 12. The
Examiner cites Oliveira, not Phahlad, for those limitations (see Ans. 8
(citing Oliveira i-fi-123, 25-30)), and Appellants do not substantively address
the Examiner's findings. Further, claims 20, 23, and 36 recite known
storage technologies (see Spec. i-fi-f 11-12; Oliveira i-fi-123, 25-39), and
Appellants offer no evidence to establish that the claimed applications of
known storage technologies would have been "uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'!
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Accordingly, having considered the Examiner's rejections in view of
each of Appellants' arguments and the evidence of record, we agree with the
Examiner and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings, conclusions, and
reasoning as set forth in the Final Rejection and the Examiner's Answer.
We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 11, 14--23, and 28-36.
4
Appeal2015-004211
Application 12/964,780
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 11, 14--23, and 28-36.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5