Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2017

14039009 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 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.
14/039,009 09/27/2013 JAE-GEUK KIM SEC.3373 9934
20987 7590 09/19/2017
VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC
ONE FREEDOM SQUARE
11951 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 1300
RESTON, VA 20190
EXAMINER
HARMON, COURTNEY N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2017 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):
cjohnson @ volentine. com
aloomis @ volentine.com
iplaw @ volentine. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAE-GEUK KIM, CHANG-MAN LEE, CHUL LEE,
and JOO-YOUNG HWANG
Appeal 2017-005390
Application 14/039,0091
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellants’ invention is a storage device, a directory entry lookup
method for the storage device, and a host running the method. The host
includes an interface for exchanging data with the storage device which
stores a multi-level hash table comprising directory entries of each directory,
and a file system module receiving a file lookup command designating a
1 The real party in interest is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. See App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-005390
Application 14/039,009
target directory and a target filename, calculating a hash value which reflects
the target filename and a lookup level, and searching for a directory entry
which comprises the target filename in a bucket corresponding to the hash
value from among buckets at the lookup level. If the search for the directory
entry fails, the file system module increases the lookup level, again
calculates the hash value, and searches for the directory entry for the target
filename. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A host, comprising:
an interface configured to exchange data with a storage
device which stores a multi-level hash table comprising directory
entries of each directory of files stored in the storage device; and
a file system module configured to receive a file lookup
command designating a target directory and a target filename, to
calculate a hash value which reflects the target filename and a
lookup level, and to search for a directory entry which comprises
the target filename in a bucket corresponding to the hash value
from among buckets at the lookup level which are included in a
multi-level hash table of the target directory,
wherein when the searching for the directory entry at the
lookup level fails, the file system module increases the lookup
level and performs again the calculating of the hash value based
on the increased lookup value and the searching for the directory
entry which comprises the target filename.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Lee US 2003/0177151 A1 Sept. 18,2003
Passey US 2008/0046445 A1 Feb. 21,2008
Chellapilla US 2008/0275847 A1 Nov. 6, 2008
Schimunek US 2009/0307241 A1 Dec. 10, 2009
Kohl US 7,860,908 B2 Dec. 28, 2010
Watanabe US 2011/0270852 A1 Nov. 3,2011
2
Appeal 2017-005390
Application 14/039,009
Claims 1,7, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schimunek and Passey.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schimunek, Passey, and Kohl.
Claims 3 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schimunek, Passey, and Chellapilla.
Claims 4—6 and 8—12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schimunek, Passey, and Lee.
Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schimunek and Watanabe.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schimunek, Passey, Watanabe, and Lee.
Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,”
filed Oct. 3, 2016), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 7, 2017), the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed March 1, 2016), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 11, 2017) for their respective
details.
3
Appeal 2017-005390
Application 14/039,009
ISSUES
1. Does the combination of Schimunek and Passey disclose or
suggest that the file system module increases the lookup level and performs
again the calculating of the hash value based on the increased lookup value?
2. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim 13,
does the combination of Schimunek and Passey disclose or suggest all the
limitations of the claim?
3. Would the proposed combination of Schimunek and Watanabe
change the principle of operation of Schimunek, or render Schimunek
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 7
Independent claim 1 recites, when a search for the directory entry at
the lookup level fails, the file system module increases the lookup level and
performs again the calculating of the hash value based on the increased
lookup value and the searching for the directory entry which comprises the
target filename. Independent claim 13 recites a substantially identical
limitation.
We observe that claim 1, directed to a system (a “host”), contains a
conditional limitation — a function that is performed only “when the
searching for the directory entry at the lookup level fails.” This Board has
held that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having
structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition
precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should
the condition occur.” Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847, slip op.
at 14 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential).
4
Appeal 2017-005390
Application 14/039,009
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 7
(inter alia) because Passey does not disclose increasing the lookup level and
performing again the calculating of the hash value (reflecting the target
filename and the lookup level) based on the increased lookup value. App.
Br. 6.
The Examiner finds that Passey discloses the claimed “increase[ing]
the lookup level” and “perform[ing] again the calculating of the hash value
based on the increased lookup value.” Ans. 2. The Examiner attempts to
support this finding by citing to a large number of paragraphs of Passey. See
Ans. 2-4. We have reviewed the passages cited by the Examiner, but we do
not find disclosure of the claimed increase of the lookup level, followed by
performance again of the calculation of the hash value based on that
increased lookup value. We agree with Appellants that that this “plethora of
non-probative quotations” does not evidence that Passey’s “reverse lookup
hint[s]” are in fact “recalculated hash values at an increased lookup level” as
claim 1 requires. See Reply Br. 8.
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and
7 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schimunek and Passey, and we
do not sustain the rejection.
Claims 2-6 and 8-12
Each of these claims depends from independent claim 1, the rejection
of which we do not sustain, supra. We have reviewed the Kohl, Chellapilla,
and Lee references and we find that they do not remedy the deficiencies of
Schimunek and Passey. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejections of claims 2—6 and 8—12, for the same reasons stated
supra with respect to the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1.
5
Appeal 2017-005390
Application 14/039,009
Claims 13-15
The Examiner concluded that independent claim 13 is unpatentable
over Schimunek and Passey for the same reasons given with respect to claim
1. However, claim 13 is a method claim, whereas claim lisa system claim
(a “host”). In Schulhauser, the Board held that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of a method claim which recites a condition precedent
encompasses an instance in which the method ends when the condition is not
satisfied and the remaining step or steps need not be reached. See
Schulhauser, slip op. at 6—10.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 13, therefore,
encompasses the instance in which searching for the directory entry does not
fail, and, thus, the final step of the method claim (“increasing the lookup
level and performing again the calculating of the hash value based on the
increased lookup value”) is not performed. Under such interpretation, we
agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Schimunek and
Passey discloses all the limitations of claim 13. See Final Act. 7—12. Any
error by the Examiner in finding that Passey discloses “increasing the lookup
level and performing again the calculating” is, therefore, harmless to the
rejection of claim 13.
We sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 13 and 14 over
Schimunek and Passey. Further, we also sustain the § 103(a) rejection of
claim 15 over Schimunek, Passey, and Chellapilla, not separately argued, for
the same reasons.
Claims 16- 20
Appellants argue that modification of Schimunek in view of
Watanabe, as the Examiner proposes, would impermissibly change the
6
Appeal 2017-005390
Application 14/039,009
principle of operation of Schimunek. App. Br. 17—19. According to
Appellants, searching for endpoint resolution information of a file based
upon the file’s pathname and a path-code that is divided by the number of
buckets within a level (i.e., the hash of the pathname divided by the number
of buckets within a level) would be “a different principle than obtaining
endpoint resolution information of a file based upon the file’s pathname and
the path-code.” Appellants cite In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959), as
support for their argument. App. Br. 19.
In Ratti, the Examiner had proposed to modify the Chinnery
reference, which taught an interference press fit seal, in view of Jepson’s
teaching of a coffee maker gasket having resilient spring fingers to
supposedly “stiffen” the seal. See Ratti, 270 F.2d at 813. The Court held
that the Examiner’s proposed modification “would require a substantial
reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in Chinnery et al. as well
as a change in the basic principles under which the Chinnery et al.
construction was designed to operate.” Id.
Here, by contrast, the Examiner proposes merely that Schimunek’s
system would search for endpoint resolution information of a file, using a
path-code as before, but a path-code that has been divided by a number.
Final Act. 15. We find that such a modification would not require
substantial reconstruction and redesign, and would not wreak a change in the
basic principles of operation of Schimunek. We are, therefore, not
persuaded that one having ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated to combine Schimunek and Watanabe.
Appellants further contend that the proposed combination would have
rendered Schimunek unsatisfactory for its intended purpose simply because
7
Appeal 2017-005390
Application 14/039,009
the proposed modification, i.e., dividing the path-code by the number of
buckets within a level, would change the system such that it could not
properly identify the endpoint resolution information for a file. See App. Br.
22.
In the pertinent case law, the court disfavored an Examiner’s
combination of references in which the proposed modification of the
reference would have changed a filtering system that required the assistance
of gravity to separate undesired dirt and water from gasoline and other light
oils to one in which the system was turned upside down, depriving the
system of the assistance of gravity. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902
(Fed. Cir. 1984). The court held that if the apparatus were turned upside
down, it would be rendered inoperable for its intended purpose. Id. We
find, by contrast, that mere division of the path-code by a number would not
render Schimunek inoperable. We find that the skilled artisan would have
found it obvious to combine Schimunek with Watanabe in a manner that
would enable the combined system to continue properly identifying file
resolution information.
We are not persuaded that the teachings of Schimunek and Watanabe
are not properly combinable. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection
of claims 16, 17, 19, and 20. We further sustain the § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claim 18, not separately argued, over Schimunek, Passey,
Watanabe, and Fee, for the same reasons.
8
Appeal 2017-005390
Application 14/039,009
CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Schimunek and Passey does not disclose or
suggest that the file system module increases the lookup level and performs
again the calculating of the hash value based on the increased lookup value.
2. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim 13,
the combination of Schimunek and Passey discloses all the limitations of the
claim.
3. The proposed combination of Schimunek and Watanabe would not
change the principle of operation of Schimunek, nor render Schimunek
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13—20 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—12 is reversed.
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
9