Ex Parte Hirsch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2013

11194086 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2013)

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.
11/194,086 07/29/2005 Michael Hirsch TUC920085041US2/TUC1P019 8265
50548 7590 02/08/2013
ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- IBM
P.O. BOX 721120
SAN JOSE, CA 95172-1120
EXAMINER
PHAM, KHANH B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL HIRSCH, HAIM BITNER, LIOR ARONOVICH,
RON ASHER, EITAN BACHMAT, and SHMUEL T. KLEIN

___________

Appeal 2010-008182
Application 11/194,086
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, HUNG H. BUI, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008182
Application 11/194,086

2
This is an appeal
1
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-35 and 39-52.
2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to systems and methods for enabling
searches of a repository for the location of data that is similar to input data,
using a defined measure of similarity, in a time that is independent of the
size of the repository and linear in a size of the input data, and a space that is
proportional to a small fraction of the size of the repository. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, and is reproduced below with disputed
limitations in italics:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising a similarity search
followed by an identity comparison:
the similarity search comprising:
at a first location, using a first computer to determine a set of
distinguishing characteristics associated with each of a plurality
of first data chunks of first data stored at the first location;
transmitting the determined sets of first data distinguishing
characteristics from the first location to a remote location
different than the first location;
at the remote location, using a remote computer to compare
a plurality of the determined sets of first data distinguishing
characteristics to one or more sets of remote data
distinguishing characteristics, and to identify one or more
remote data chunks of remote data stored at the remote
location that are similar to the first data based on the
comparison, wherein the one or more remote data chunks is
determined to be similar to the first data when a number of

1
The Real Party in Interest is IBM Corp.
2
Claims 36-38 were cancelled and are not on appeal.
Appeal 2010-008182
Application 11/194,086

3
matching distinguishing characteristics is found in the
respective sets of distinguishing characteristic for the first and
remote chunks which exceeds a similarity threshold; and
the identity comparison, comprising:
using the determined similar data chunks, determining one
or more differences between the first data and the identified
similar remote data, without transmitting all of the of first data
to the remote location and without transmitting all of the
identified similar remote data to the first location.

EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
Claims 1-35 and 39-52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Balcha et al. (US 6,233,589 B1).

ISSUE 1
§ 102(b) Rejection of Claims 1-5, 10, 13-24, 32-35, and 39-52

Appellants argue that Balcha fails to disclose:
at the remote location, using a remote computer to compare a
plurality of the determined sets of first data distinguishing
characteristics to one or more sets of remote data distinguishing
characteristics, and to identify one or more remote data chunks
of remote data stored at the remote location that are similar to
the first data based on the comparison, wherein the one or more
remote data chunks is determined to be similar to the first data
then a number of matching distinguishing characteristics is
found in the respective sets of distinguishing characteristic for
the first and remote chunks which exceeds a similarity
threshold.
(App. Br. 14.)

Appeal 2010-008182
Application 11/194,086

4
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Balcha discloses:
at the remote location, using a remote computer to compare a
plurality of the determined sets of first data distinguishing
characteristics to one or more sets of remote data distinguishing
characteristics, and to identify one or more remote data chunks
of remote data stored at the remote location that are similar to
the first data based on the comparison, wherein the one or more
remote data chunks is determined to be similar to the first data
then a number of matching distinguishing characteristics is
found in the respective sets of distinguishing characteristic for
the first and remote chunks which exceeds a similarity
threshold

as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that Balcha fails to
disclose:
at the remote location, using a remote computer to compare a
plurality of the determined sets of first data distinguishing
characteristics to one or more sets of remote data distinguishing
characteristics, and to identify one or more remote data chunks
of remote data stored at the remote location that are similar to
the first data based on the comparison, wherein the one or more
remote data chunks is determined to be similar to the first data
then a number of matching distinguishing characteristics is
found in the respective sets of distinguishing characteristic for
the first and remote chunks which exceeds a similarity
threshold.

(App. Br. 13-17; Reply Br. 4-5.)
The Examiner finds that Balcha meets the disputed claim limitation
because Balcha describes:
the step of comparing CRC value in the base signature file
(mapped to the claimed “set of distinguishing characteristic for
Appeal 2010-008182
Application 11/194,086

5
the first chunks”) with the revised CRC value (mapped to the
claimed “set of distinguishing characteristic for the remote
chunks”). . . . [and] “match is an indication that the block of
data matches a block of data in the base file,” meaning that if
the two CRC value are matched (or identical), then the two
corresponding data block are matched (or identical).

(Ans. 7-8; see Balcha col. 3, ll. 28-38.) We agree with the Examiner.
Appellants contend there is no disclosure that Balcha’s method
determines that the base file and revised base file are similar, rather the
process in Balcha works on a base file and a revised base file that are already
known to be similar (i.e., they were copes of the same file to begin with, the
revisions occurred on one of them, making that one the revised base
file). (App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 5-6.) Therefore, the two files must already
be known for the process of Balcha to work. (Id.) According to the
Appellants, the “Balcha’s system already knows that the two files are
similar, and so any similarity determination would be superfluous.” (Reply
Br. 4-5.) However, there is no limitation in the claims as recited that limits
the compared data sets to only those that are unknown. Moreover, as
discussed above, the Examiner finds that Balcha discloses matching
distinguishing characteristics from chunks of data and determining similarity
between the data. (Ans. 7-8; see Balcha col. 3, ll. 28-38.)
Appellants further contend that “Balcha fails to teach any use of a
similarity threshold” because “Balcha appears to teach that if two data
chunks match precisely, then they are the same” and “in Balcha, the [CRC]
values much match completely in order for the block of data to be
considered as a match for a block of data in the base file.” (App. Br. 15-16.)
However, as the Examiner finds, the Appellants’ Specification indicates that
Appeal 2010-008182
Application 11/194,086

6
identical chunks of data (i.e., precise/complete matches) would exceed said
similarity threshold. (Ans. 8; Spec. paragraph [059].) Therefore, under the
broadest interpretation of the claim consistent with the Specification,
identical chunks of data meet the claim limitation “exceeds a similarity
threshold.”
Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding
Balcha discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 1.
Appellants have not presented any substantially different arguments
for independent claims 13, 17, 20, 32, 39, and 43, which require the same
disputed claim limitation as claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection
of independent claims 1, 13, 17, 20, 32, 39, and 43 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b). Similarly, Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments with respect to dependent claims 2-5, 10, 14-15, 18-19, 21-24, 29,
33-35, 40-42, and 44-52 and thus, these claims fall with their respective
independent claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 10,
13-24, 32-35, and 39-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

ISSUE 2
§ 102(b) Rejection of Claims 6 and 25
Appellants argue that Balcha fails to disclose either multiple remote
computers or locations of the differing portions and the respective first data
portions. (App. Br. 21.) “In addition, Balcha fails to disclose transferring
this data from a first location to a second location different from the remote
location.” (Id.) Further, there is “no description [in Balcha] of recreating
data from the differing portions and the identified similar remote data as
required by claims 6 and 25.” (Id.)
Appeal 2010-008182
Application 11/194,086

7
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding that Balcha discloses
“transmitting….from the first location to the second location different from
the remote location” and “recreating the first data as a function of the
differing portion and the identified similar remote data” as recited in claims
6 and 25?

ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 18-20; Reply
Br. 14) that Balcha fails to disclose “transmitting….from the first location to
the second location different from the remote location” and “recreating the
first data as a function of the differing portion and the identified similar
remote data.”
The Examiner finds Balcha discloses at Fig. 1 two different servers
and locals remotely connected to each other. (Ans. 8-9.) Each server stores
a copy of the base file and the base file can be modified at either
server. (Ans. 9; see Balcha, col. 4 ll. 50-65.) Contrary to Appellants’
contentions, as the Examiner noted, Balcha discloses that the delta file is
communicated over the network to the server. (Ans. 9; see Balcha, col. 4, ll.
60-65.) Further, Appellants concede “that Balcha teaches that the base
signature file can be transmitted over a network to another computer.”
(App. Br. 23.) Therefore, Balcha discloses transmitting from the first and
the second location as recited in claims 6 and 25. Additionally, since Balcha
transmits the delta file, Balcha discloses recreating the first data as a
function of the differing portion (delta file) and the identified similar remote
data (base signature file). Accordingly, the Examiner finds Balcha meets the
disputed claim limitations. We agree.
Appeal 2010-008182
Application 11/194,086

8
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

ISSUE 3
§ 102(b) Rejection of Claims 7 and 26
Appellants argue Balcha does not disclose “recreating the first data
comprises: the second location retrieving the entire identified similar remote
data from the remote location.” (App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 15.) The Examiner
finds Balcha discloses “applying the primitives commands to a previous
version of the file to generate the revised file, wherein the previous version
of the files corresponds to the identified similar remote data from the remote
location.” (Ans. 10; see Balcha, col. 3, ll. 50-60.) The Examiner
specifically points out the step in Balcha of recreating the first data by
adding D into the similar remote data stream containing A and B. (Ans. 10;
see Balcha, col. 9 ll. 1-40.)
We concur with the Examiner’s findings, and are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding Balcha discloses the invention as recited in 7 and
26. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).

ISSUE 4
§ 102(b) Rejection of Claims 8 and 27
Appellants argue Balcha does not teach recreating the first data
comprising the second location retrieving from the remote location only
those portions of the identified similar remote data that are the same as the
first data, as “Balch merely discloses generating a revised file, not a set of
Appeal 2010-008182
Application 11/194,086

9
first data.” (App. Br. 23.) The Examiner’s response to this argument is
similar to that discussed above with respect to claims 7 and 26. As
discussed above, we concur with the Examiner’s findings regarding Balcha’s
disclosure of “applying the primitives commands to a previous version of the
file to generate the revised file, wherein the previous version of the files
corresponds to the identified similar remote data from the remote location.”
(Ans. 10-11; see Balcha, col. 3, ll. 50-60.)
Appellants further argue that “the claimed ‘second location different
from the remote location’ clearly refers to geographic locations, not data
locations in a file.” (Reply Br. 16.) However, given the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim, consistent with the Specification, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Balcha discloses the invention as
recited in claims 8 and 27. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ISSUE 5
§ 102(b) Rejection of Claims 9 and 28
Claims 9 and 28 recite the limitation of “the first and second
computers being in networked communication with one another.”
Appellants acknowledge “that Balcha teaches that the base signature file can
be transmitted over a network to another computer” (App. Br. 23), but argue
that “there is no disclosure of using a first computer (at a first location), a
remote computer (at a remote location), and a second computer (at a second
location) from which to recreate the first data as a function of the differing
portions and the identified similar remote data.” (App. Br. 23; Reply Br.
17.) However, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Balcha discloses at Fig. 1
Appeal 2010-008182
Application 11/194,086

10
two different servers and locals remotely connected to each other and, as
such, Balcha describes multiple computers networked together. (Ans. 8-
9.) Further, we emphasize that Balcha discloses that (1) a base signature file
is generated on one server and copied to the other server, (2) either base file
21 or 27 can be modified at either server, and (3) upon detection of a
modification of the file, the detecting server uses the respective base
signature to generate a new delta file and communicate the delta file over
network 26 to the other server 24 so that server 24 can use the delta file to
update the base file and recalculate the base signature file. (See Balcha,
col.4 l. 51-col. 5 l. 3.) Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that
Balcha meets the disputed claim limitations.
As such we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Balcha
discloses the invention as recited in claims 9 and 28. Thus, we sustain the
rejections of claims 9 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ISSUE 6
§ 102(b) Rejection of Claims 11 and 30
Claims 11 and 30 recite the limitation of “selecting a subset of the
calculated hash values as the set of distinguishing characteristics.”
Appellants acknowledge that Balcha teaches the use of secure hash
algorithm (SHA) (App. Br. 23), but argue that “[s]electing a subset of the
calculated hash values as the set of distinguishing characteristics is not
disclosed in Balcha. Instead, Balcha uses the SHA as a way of more
securely protecting the data it represents, rather than as a way of minimizing
the distinguishing characteristics’ memory usage.” (App. Br. 24; Reply Br.
18.) However, the Examiner finds Balcha discloses selecting a subset of
Appeal 2010-008182
Application 11/194,086

11
CRC values {A, B, C, D, E, F} to be included in the base sig. file. (Ans. 12;
see Balcha, col. 13 ll. 50-60.) The Examiner indicates that a subset can be
at large as the supper set which includes it. (Ans. 12.) The Examiner also
finds Balcha discloses that the CRC value can be enhanced through the use
of Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA). (Ans. 12; see Balcha, col. 10 ll. 23-30.)
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Balcha meets the disputed claim
limitations.
As such we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Balcha
discloses the invention as recited in claims 11 and 30. Thus, we sustain the
rejection of claims 11 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

ISSUE 7
§ 102(b) Rejection of Claims 12 and 31
Appellants argue that Balcha fails to disclose “determining the k
largest mathematical hash values in a set, k being a predetermined number.”
(App. Br. 24; Reply Br. 19.) However, as discussed above, the Examiner
finds Balcha discloses the:
use of all CRC (or HASH) values in the set to be included in
the set of distinguishing characteristics, therefore, k corresponds
to the number of hash values in the set. Balcha also teaches
that the size of each block of data is predetermined, so as the
number of hash values in the set.

(Ans. 12; see Balcha, col. 10 ll. 23-30, col. 13 ll. 50-60.) Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner’s findings that Balcha meets the disputed claim
limitations.
Appeal 2010-008182
Application 11/194,086

12
As such we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Balcha
discloses the invention as recited in claims 12 and 31. Thus, we sustain the
rejection of claims 12 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-35 and 39-52 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

ELD