Ex Parte Kimmel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 16, 2013

10951644 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 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.
10/951,644 09/27/2004 Jeffrey S. Kimmel 5693P083 8195
8791 7590 04/17/2013
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
MCCARTHY, CHRISTOPHER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2113
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2013 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 JEFFREY S. KIMMEL, SUNITHA S. SANKAR, RAJESH
SUNDARAM, NITIN MUPPALANENI,
EMILY W. ENG, and ERIC C. HAMILTON
____________

Appeal 2010-010381
Application 10/951,644
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-010381
Application 10/951,644

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, 17-20, 22-27, 29-31, 33-41, 43-46, 48-
52, 54-57, and 59-61, which are all the claims remaining in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
Claim 1. A method comprising:
in response to a request to perform a write operation that affects a data
block, writing to a storage device the data block together with context
information which uniquely identifies the write operation with respect to the
data block, wherein the context information comprises a file block number,
an inode number and a generation number, and wherein the context
information is sufficient to distinguish the write operation from a prior write
operation on the data block;
reading the data block and the context information together from the
storage device, and
using the context information that was read with the data block to
determine whether the data block is valid, wherein using the context
information comprises
comparing the context information that was read with the data
block to corresponding context information from an application, and
determining that a previous write of the data block was lost
without an error being detected if the context information that was
read with the data block does not match the corresponding context
information from the application, wherein the previous write was lost
because it was not committed to the storage device.

Prior Art
Johnson US 4,887,204 Dec. 12, 1989
Talagala US 7,020,805 B2 Mar. 28, 2006

Appeal 2010-010381
Application 10/951,644

3
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, 17-20, 22-27, 29-31, 33-41, 43-46, 48-52,
54-57, and 59-61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Talagala and Johnson.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “determining that a previous write of the data block
was lost without an error being detected if the context information that was
read with the data block does not match the corresponding context
information from the application,” where the “context information comprises
a file block number, an inode number and a generation number.” The
Examiner finds that Talagala teaches determining that a previous write of the
data block was lost without an error being detected if the context
information that was read with the data block does not match the
corresponding context information from the application. See Ans. 4, citing
Talagala col. 3, ll. 15-20. The Examiner finds that Johnson teaches using a
file handle including a device number, an inode number, and an inode
generation number to determine whether a file has been deleted. See Ans. 4-
5, citing Johnson col. 17, ll. 65-68 and col. 18, ll. 15-18. The Examiner
concludes that the combination of Talagala and Johnson teaches determining
that a previous write of the data block was lost. Ans. 4-5. Appellants
contend that the inode generation number taught by Johnson cannot be used
to determine that a previous write of the data block was lost. App. Br. 9;
Reply Br. 4-5.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence or argument to show that the inode number and
Appeal 2010-010381
Application 10/951,644

4
generation number taught by Johnson, combined with the version identifier
of Talagala, cannot be used to determine that a previous write of the data
block was lost as taught by Talagala.
Appellants also contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to combine the teachings of Talagala and Johnson.
App. Br. 9. The Examiner finds that Talagala teaches detecting a lost write
by detecting a mismatch between two version identifiers, and Johnson
teaches detecting a deleted file by detecting a mismatch between two inode
generation numbers. See Ans. 26-27. We agree with the Examiner, because
we find that detecting a mismatch between the inode generation numbers of
Johnson to detect a lost write as taught by Talagala is the combination of
familiar elements according to known methods that does no more than yield
the predictable result of using an inode generation number to detect a lost
write. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
have not provided arguments for separate patentability of claims 2, 4-9, 11-
15, 17-20, 22-27, 29-31, 33-41, 43-46, 48-52, 54-57, and 59-61 which fall
with claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, 17-20, 22-27, 29-31, 33-41,
43-46, 48-52, 54-57, and 59-61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Talagala and Johnson is affirmed.

Appeal 2010-010381
Application 10/951,644

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

kis