Ex Parte Hassanpur et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2017

13742283 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2017)

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.
13/742,283 01/15/2013 Mujtaba Mohammed HASSANPUR 83126881 5045
56436 7590
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
GEBRIL, MOHAMED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2135
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2017 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MUJTABA MOHAMMED HASSANPUR and IVAN MATIAS
FONT1
Appeal 2016-007595
Application 13/742,283
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 20, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and enter a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
1 Applicant is Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Development Company, L.P. Inc.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-007595
Application 13/742,283
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for use with a volatile memory
system, where files from persistent memory are copied to the volatile system
and where open to writing /close to writing requests are tracked and used to
synchronize the persistent and volatile memories. See Spec., Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented process comprising:
initiating a volatile file system, the initiating comprising
copying all persistent files of a persistent file system from
persistent memory to volatile memory to yield volatile files of
the volatile file system;
in response to initiating the volatile file system:
redirecting at least some requests to open to writing or to
close to writing persistent files of the persistent file system
to the corresponding volatile files of the volatile file system;
tracking openings to writing and closings to writing of
volatile files of the volatile file system to yield a
synchronization record; and
synchronizing persistent files of the persistent file system
to volatile files of the volatile file system based on the
synchronization record.
2
Appeal 2016-007595
Application 13/742,283
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 6, 8, 9, and 11 through 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rajvanshy (US
2011/0225367 Al; pub. Sept. 15, 2011), Yoshida (US 2012/0324268 Al;
pub. Dec. 20, 2012) and Flynn (US 8,527,693 B2; iss. Sept. 3, 2013).
Answer 3—8.2
The Examiner rejected claims 7, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rajvanshy, Yoshida, Flynn, and Rostampour (US
8,407,396; iss. Mar. 26, 2013). Id. at 8—9.
The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brundridge (US 2007/0220301; pub. Sept. 20, 2007),
Rostampour, and Yoshida. Id. at 9-10.
The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brundridge, Rostampour, Yoshida and Rajvanshy. Id. at
10-11.
The Examiner rejected claims 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Brundridge, Rostampour, Yoshida, Rajvanshy
and Flynn. Id. at 11—13.
ISSUES
Appellants argue, on pages 7 through 11 of the Appeal Brief, that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 6, 8, 9, and 11 through 15 is in
error. These arguments present us with the following issues:
2 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated November 18,
2015 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on May 19, 2016.
3
Appeal 2016-007595
Application 13/742,283
1) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Rajvanshy and
Yoshida teaches copying all persistent files in a file system from
persistent memory to volatile memory as recited in representative
claim 1?
2) Did the Examiner err in not providing sufficient rationale to make
the proposed combination?
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 10 is in
error for the same reasons as claim 1 and the additional teachings of
Rostampour do not make up for the deficiencies argued with respect to claim
1. App. Br. 11.
Appellants argue, on pages 12 through 13 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 is in error. These arguments present us
with the following issues:
3) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Brundidge,
Rostampour and Yoshida teaches copying all persistent files in a
file system from persistent memory to volatile memory as recited
in representative claim 16?
4) Did the Examiner err in not providing sufficient rationale to make
the proposed combination?
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 is in error for
the same reasons as claim 16 and the additional teachings of Rajvanshy do
not make up for the deficiencies argued with respect to claim 1. App. Br.
13.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18 through 20 is
in error for the same reasons as claim 16 and the additional teachings of
4
Appeal 2016-007595
Application 13/742,283
Flynn does not make up for the deficiencies argued with respect to claim 16.
App. Br. 14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 20.
Claims 1 through 15
Appellants’ arguments directed to the first issue assert that neither
Rajvanshy nor Yoshida teach transferring all of the persistent files in a file
system from persistent memory to volatile memory. App Br. 7—8.
Specifically, Appellants assert Yoshida teaches copying the file structure
and mounting structure, not all files as claimed. Id. at 8. Further, Appellants
argue the Yoshida teaches the copying is from RAM to RAM, not persistent
memory to volatile memory as claimed. Id.
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner identifies
Rajvanshy teaches copying all files in a backfilling process in which data is
copied back to a memory bank (volatile memory) from persistent storage (a
database). Answer 13—14 (citing Rajvanshy, paras. 17 and 29). We have
reviewed the cited teachings of Rajvanshy and concur with the Examiner’s
finding that Rajvanshy teaches copying from persistent to volatile memory,
all persistent files as claimed. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments directed
to the first issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection
of representative claim 1.
5
Appeal 2016-007595
Application 13/742,283
Appellants arguments directed to the second issue assert that the
Examiner’s rationale to combine the references is insufficient, as the cited
teaching of Yoshida, of the user not needing to access low speed secondary
storage, is not related to the modification of copying files. App Br. 9—10
(citing Yoshida, paras. 56, 80-81, and Fig. 12).
We are not persuaded of error by these arguments. The Examiner has
provided a comprehensive response to this argument on page 14 of the
Answer. We have reviewed, and concur with, the Examiner’s rationale.
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments directed to the second issue have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1.
As Appellants have grouped claims 1 through 6, 8, 9, and 11 through 15, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Further, as Appellants’
arguments directed to dependent claims 7 and 10 rely upon the arguments
directed to claim 1, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7
and 10.
Claim 16.
Appellants’ arguments directed to the third issue assert Brundidge,
Rostampour, and Yoshida do not teach a copying all persistent files in a file
system from persistent memory to volatile memory. App. Br. 12.
Specifically, Appellants assert that Yoshida teaches copying the file
structure and mounting structure, not all files as claimed. Id. at 8.
The Examiner responds by stating these arguments are not persuasive
for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. We disagree. The
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments, with which we concur, is
directed to the combination of Rajvanshy and Yoshida. Rajvanshy is not
relied upon in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16. Accordingly, we do not
6
Appeal 2016-007595
Application 13/742,283
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 based upon Brundidge,
Rostampour, and Yoshida.
Claims 17 through 20
Appellants’ arguments directed to claim 17 assert that the Examiner’s
rejection is in error for reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 16.
We are not persuaded by these arguments. Claim 17 is dependent upon
claim 16. As discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 16, as the Examiner has not shown that the combination of Brundidge,
Rostampour, and Yoshida teaches copying all persistent files in a file system
from persistent memory to volatile memory. However, in rejecting claim
17, the Examiner adds Rajvanshy to the rejection. As discussed above with
respect to claim 1, we find Rajvanshy teaches copying all persistent files in a
file system from persistent memory to volatile memory. Thus, Appellants’
arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim
17, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17. Further, we apply
the Examiner’s rationale used to reject claim 17 to claim 16 and enter a new
rejection of claim 16 based upon Brundidge, Rostampour, Yoshida, and
Rajvanshy.
Appellants’ arguments directed to claims 18 through 20 assert the
rejection is in error for the same reasons as claim 16. The Examiner’s
rejection of claims 18 through 20 includes Rajvanshy; therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection for the same reasons as discussed with respect to
claim 1.
7
Appeal 2016-007595
Application 13/742,283
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 15 and 17
through 20 is AFFIRMED-IN-PART. However, we enter NEW GROUND
OF REJECTION against claim 16, by applying the Examiner’s rationale and
findings applied to claims 1 and 17 to claim 16.
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). This section provides that “[a] new ground of rejection . . . shall
not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new grounds of
rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution
will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under §41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The
request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection
and state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART: 37 C.F.R § 41.50(b)
8