Ex Parte Lad

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2016

12553199 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/553, 199 0910312009
116504 7590 10/28/2016
Perkins Coie LLP - Comm Vault Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 1247
Seattle, WA 98111-1247
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kamleshkumar K. Lad
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.
060692-8065.USOl 6112
EXAMINER
HUTTON, NAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2016 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):
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAMLESHKUMAR K. LAD 1
Appeal2015-003099
Application 12/553, 199
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES W. DEJMEK, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12, and 14--18. Claims 3, 6, 13, and 19-22 have been
canceled. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Comm Vault Systems, Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-003099
Application 12/553,199
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to transferring or migrating
data objects (such as files, folders, data stores, and/or discrete data
components) "by migrating segments, portions, increments, or proper
subsets of the data objects." Spec. i-f 16. Exemplary approaches described
include block-based and chunk-based migration methodologies. Spec.
i-fi-136-39, 48-50. In disclosed embodiments, only a proper subset (i.e., less
than all) of blocks or chunks is migrated, based on predetermined storage
criteria (e.g., last time the data block was modified). Spec. i-fi-117-18, 36-39,
48-50, Figs. 6A, 6B. According to the Specification, the claimed invention
provides cost and time benefits, inter alia, associated with data storage and
restoration. Spec. i-fi-139, 64.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A system, comprising a storage device, for migrating data from
a primary storage device to a secondary storage device, wherein the
system includes a file system for transferring data to the primary storage
device, and wherein the system further includes a disk driver for at least
writing data received from the file system to the primary storage device
and a secondary driver for at least writing data to the secondary storage
device, the system comprising:
a virtual disk driver that is between the file system and the
primary storage device, is capable of mounting to the file system, and
receives data from the file system associated with the primary storage
device and provides data to the disk driver that writes data to the
primary storage device, wherein the virtual disk driver includes:
a data reception component, wherein the data reception
component is configured to receive data from the file system,
wherein the received data identifies multiple blocks of a file to be
2
Appeal2015-003099
Application 12/553,199
mod;fied, wherein the multiple blocks are a proper subset of the
total number of blocks for the file;
a data interception component, wherein the data
interception component is configured to intercept the received
data and extract information associated with the received data,
wherein the extracted information includes information
identifying the multiple blocks to be modified;
an index component, wherein the index component is
configured to update an index that associates the extracted
information with data blocks on the secondary storage device
that contain the received data; and
a data transfer component, wherein the data transfer
component is configured to transfer the received data to the
secondary driver for storage to the secondary storage device;
a block-level data migration component, wherein the block-level
migration component is configured to identify data blocks within the
primary storage device that satisfy one or more predetermined criteria;
a data management component, configured to communicate with
the virtual disk driver, the block-level data migration component and
one or more media agents, wherein the data management component
includes a storage policy that provides the one or more predetermined
criteria, the storage policy identifying a time period in which to retain
data within the primary storage device and identifying the one or more
media agents in which to transfer the data from the file system to the
disk driver, via the virtual disk driver;
a media agent, wherein the media agent is one of the identified
media agents and is configured to:
transfer data from the identified data blocks to the
secondary driver, while retaining remaining data blocks on the
primary storage device; and
update an index that associates the transferred data with
the secondary storage device that stores data from the secondary
driver; and
a chunking component configured to divide data already in the
secondary storage device into chunks based on logical divisions
3
Appeal2015-003099
Application 12/553,199
including a date of creation, deletion or reception or a size of data to be
chunked;
wherein the block-level data migration component is configured
to identify data blocks that have not changed after a predetermined time
period based on data from the file system, and
wherein the multiple blocks are written to the secondary storage
device in a format that is not native to a format for an application that
created the file.
The Examiner's Rejections2
1. Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chakravarty et al. (US 2007 /0208788 Al; Sept. 6, 2007)
("Chakravarty") and Minami et al. (US 2007/0214330 Al; Sept. 13, 2007)
("Minami"). Final Act. 3-8.
2. Claims 4, 5, 7-12, and 14--18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chakravarty, Minami, and Reisman (US
7,751,628 Bl; July 6, 2010). Final Act. 8-19.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Chakravarty teaches or
suggests identifying or transferring less than all of the data blocks
comprising a data object to a secondary storage, as recited in independent
claim 1 ("a proper subset of the total number of blocks for the file"), and as
commensurately recited in independent claim 5 ("some data blocks being
2 In response to Appellant's amendment of claim 11, the Examiner has
withdrawn the rejection of claims 11, 12, and 14--18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Adv. Act. 2 (mailed
March 11, 2014).
4
Appeal2015-003099
Application 12/553,199
retained on the first data store while the identified blocks being transferred
to the second data store") and independent claim 11 ("transferring ... no
more than n-1 data blocks of the data file from the primary storage to the
secondary storage")?
2. Did the Examiner err in relying on Chakravarty in rejecting
claim 5 because the Examiner incorrectly equates Chakravarty' s "data
blocks" with the claimed "data objects" recited in claim 5?
3. Did the Examiner fail to provide articulated reasoning with
rational underpinning to support the proposed combination of Chakravarty
and Minami with Reisman?
ANALYSIS 3
Claims 1 and 2
Although Appellant concedes Chakravarty teaches subdividing
datasets into data blocks (App. Br. 9), Appellant contends Chakravarty fails
to teach or fairly suggest that only a proper subset (i.e., less than all) of the
data blocks for a particular dataset are identified and transferred to a
secondary storage while the remaining data blocks are retained in primary
storage. App. Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 4--6. In particular, Appellant argues
"Chakravarty teaches that all of the dataset is transferred from a primary
storage to a secondary storage." App. Br. 9.
3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed July
22, 2014 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed December 23, 2014 ("Reply
Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed on October 23, 2014 ("Ans."); and the
Final Office Action ("Final Act."), mailed on November 22, 2013, from
which this Appeal is taken.
5
Appeal2015-003099
Application 12/553,199
In response, the Examiner finds Chakravarty teaches that one or more
data blocks are moved between the first tier (i.e., primary) and second tier
(i.e., secondary) storage devices based on a data migration parameter
according to a user selected access policy. Ans. 3 (citing Chakravarty i-fi-133,
34, Fig. 1 ); see also Final Act. 4, 6 (citing Chakravarty i-fi-1 4, 31, 33-35).
Figure 1 of Chakravarty is illustrative and is reproduced below:
/--- i8A
{
i \lirtual Tape I
l ..................... J
,.,, 1SB
"
I ..... ~~s~
'---------------------.····'
_,-·- 18C
I
r---~;-,
,,.- 16D
f
[i1~~~~~~~J
1 -· 16
i
I I
A
p
I
............ 1
[
v ••••• .-.-·.-----·•»•-'-'"·····1
Access Engine
--------------··c·------------------
,_~ .26
Fig.1
Figure 1 of Chakravarty is a block diagram of the claimed data storage
system. Chakravarty i19. As shown, Chakravarty's data storage system (10)
comprises unique data block pools (14A-14n) and a redundancy reducer
(21 ). Chakravarty i1 24. "The redundancy reducer 21 utilizes the hash
engine 22 and the lookup engine 24 to store only unique data blocks 20 in
the unique data block pools 14A-14n. By storing only the unique data
6
Appeal2015-003099
Application 12/553,199
blocks 20, a substantial savings of storage space can be realized."
Chakravarty i-f 24 (emphasis added). Additionally, Chakravarty teaches:
In some embodiments, the first tier storage device includes a disk
drive that stores at least a portion of the data set prior to
reduction of the redundancy of the data blocks by the redundancy
reducer. Further, the second tier storage device can include a
disk drive that stores at least a portion of the data set following
reduction of the redundancy of the data blocks by the redundancy
reducer.
Chakravarty i-f 6 (emphases added). Thus, Chakravarty teaches, inter alia,
identifying a proper subset of the total number of data blocks of a data set
and storing or transferring a portion of the data blocks (i.e., a proper subset)
to secondary storage.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends the Examiner's reliance on
paragraph 34 of Chakravarty undercuts the Examiner's position. Reply
Br. 4--5. In particular, Appellant argues Chakravarty teaches calculating a
hash handle on the entire data set, and not on a proper subset. Reply Br. 4--5
(citing Chakravarty i-fi-133, 34).
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive of Examiner error.
Rather, Chakravarty teaches the creation of a pointer map wherein the
various pointers point to corresponding data blocks. See Chakravarty i-f 33.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 and of claim 2, which depends therefrom and was not argued
separately. App. Br. 13, 18.
7
Appeal2015-003099
Application 12/553,199
Claims 4, 5 and 7-10
Independent claim 5 is similar to claim 1, but is directed to a data
object (as opposed to a file) and recites in relevant part "some data blocks
being retained on the first data store while the identified data blocks being
transferred to the second data store." The blocks to be transferred are
identified by a bitmap which identifies data blocks of a data object that
satisfy a recent access storage criterion. App. Br. 13.
Appellant contends Chakravarty tracks access to de-duplicated data
blocks but not when individual data sets have been accessed. App. Br. 13;
Reply Br. 6-8. Appellant advances a similar argument as was argued with
respect to claim 1 that Chakravarty does not teach transferring a portion of
the identified data blocks to a second data store. App. Br. 14.
For similar reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1, we find this
argument unpersuasive of Examiner error. Further, the Examiner finds, and
we agree, Chakravarty teaches a manager residing between the file systems
and storage system (i.e., an intermediate component) that maintains a pointer
map that tracks information about changes or updates to the data blocks of
the data sets. Final Act. 10 (citing Chakravarty i-fi-121-35). Chakravarty
expressly teaches that one of the migration criteria may be the last time the
block was accessed. Chakravarty i135.
Appellant additionally argues the Examiner improperly equates
Chakravarty's data blocks with the claimed data objects. App. Br. 14--15;
Reply Br. 6-8. Contrary to Appellant's "important distinction" of
Chakravarty tracking when data blocks have been accessed as opposed to
when the data set has been accessed, we are unpersuaded of error.
Chakravarty teaches that the data set is comprised of data blocks. See
8
Appeal2015-003099
Application 12/553,199
Chakravarty il 4. Thus, when an individual data block has been accessed, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the data set to which
the data block belongs has also been accessed. See Ans. 6-7.
Additionally, Appellant argues the Examiner "failed to provide
adequate rationale why one of skill in the art would have looked to Reisman
to modify the teaching ofChakravarty." App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 8-10.
In particular, Appellant asserts Reisman is directed to deleting data, whereas
Chakravarty (as well as Appellant's claimed invention) is directed to
preserving data. App. Br. 18.
The Federal Circuit has stated that "rejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006), cited with approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007).
As the Examiner explains, Reisman is concerned with managing
storage space. Ans. 7. As part of the disclosed system, Reisman teaches a
file allocation table to track used and free storage blocks to allow the system
to delete low-significance data without opening the whole file. Ans. 7
(citing Reisman, col. 8, 11. 1-20). The Examiner further explains:
Both systems [(Chakravarty and Reisman)] need to analyze data
in files using the allocation table, Chakravarty migrates low-
significance data to a lower tier storage device; while Reisman
deletes low-significance data. The difference of the two
references is the intended use of the technique, and is not relevant
in determining the reason for combining the two references.
Ans. 8.
9
Appeal2015-003099
Application 12/553,199
Thus, we find the Examiner has provided an articulated reasoning to
support the proposed combination of references and conclusion of
obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded
the Examiner erred in relying on the combination of Chakravarty, Minami,
and Reisman.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 5 and of dependent claims 4 and 7-10, which were not argued
separately. App. Br. 18.
Claims 11, 12, and 14-18
Independent Claim 11 recites, inter alia, "transferring data contained
by the identified no more than n-1 data blocks of the data file from the
primary storage to the secondary storage, but retaining remaining blocks of
the data file in the primary storage." Similar to claim 1, Appellant argues
Chakravarty fails to teach identifying n-1 data blocks that represent a portion
of a data file consisting of n blocks (i.e., identifying less than all, or a proper
subset) and transferring the n-1 blocks to secondary storage. App. Br. 16-
17.
For similar reasons as those discussed with respect to claim 1, we do
not find Appellant's argument persuasive of Examiner error. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 11 and of claims
12 and 14--18, which depend therefrom and were not argued separately.
App. Br. 18.
10
Appeal2015-003099
Application 12/553,199
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12,
and 14--18.
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(±).
AFFIRMED
11