Ex Parte Lewis

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2019

13957849 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/957,849 08/02/2013 Mark S. Lewis
49845 7590 03/27/2019
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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.
2043.L07US1 3191
EXAMINER
ALLEN,BRITTANYN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2019 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):
USPTO@SLWIP.COM
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK S. LEWIS
Appeal2018-005099
Application 13/957 ,849 1
Technology Center 2100
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-14, 17, 18, 20-25, and 27-
32.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Formation Data
Systems, Inc. with Pacific W estem Bank having an assigned security
interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 2, 6, 15, 16, 19, and 26 are cancelled and claims 31 and 32 were
added. Final Act. 2.
Appeal2018-005099
Application 13/957,849
INVENTION
The present invention hashes a data object (i.e., executes a hash
function on the object to determine a respective hash value) and stores the
object within a storage node selected via the hash value. Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below.
1. A method for an application node to process a write
request that includes a data object, the method comprising:
at an application node, the write request issued by an application
module on the application node, executing a hash function on the
data object from the write request to generate a hash value that
includes a first portion and a second portion;
at the application node, querying a data location table with the
first portion of the hash value to obtain two or more storage node
identifiers identifying two or more storage nodes at which the
data object is to be stored, the two or more storage nodes selected
from a plurality of storage nodes that are separate from the
application node, the data location table stored at the application
node;and
sending the data object from the application node to the two or
more storage nodes identified by the two or more storage node
identifiers.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, 17, 18, 20-22, 24, 27-29, and 323 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shukla (US 8,572,033 B2; Oct. 29,
3 Claim 32 was entered before the Final Action (Final Act. 2). We note that
the Final Rejection does not specifically list claim 32 in the statement of
rejections. However, Appellant does not make any specific arguments with
respect to claim 32. Thus, for purposes of this appeal, we will treat claim 32
as rejected under the same rejection as claim 27, its rejected base claim.
2
Appeal2018-005099
Application 13/957,849
2013), Shetty et al. (US 2014/0149794 Al; May 29, 2014) ("Shetty"), and
Borshack et al. (US 2014/0089273 Al; Mar. 27, 2014) ("Borshack"). Final
Act. 3-8.4
Claims 3 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Shukla, Shetty, Borshack, and Carpentier et al.
(US 2013/0339314 Al; Dec. 19, 2013) ("Carpentier"). Final Act. 8.
Claims 4, 7, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Shukla, Shetty, Borshack, and Fujiwara et al.
(US 7,587,426 B2; Sept. 8, 2009) ("Fujiwara"). Final Act. 9-10. 5
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Shetty and Carpentier. Final Act. 10-11.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Shetty, Carpentier, and Amaudov et al.
(US 2015/0026132 Al; Jan. 22, 2015) ("Amaudov"). Final Act. 12-13.
4 Claim 8 is denoted by the statement of this rejection of (Final Act. 3) but
not addressed by the detail/body of this rejection (id. at 3-8). Further,
claim 8 is denoted by another statement of rejection (id. at 10) and addressed
within the detail/body of that rejection (id. at 10-11). Accordingly, we
address claim 8 with regard to the latter rejection.
5 Claim 30 is denoted by the statement of rejection of (Final Act. 9) but
incorrectly addressed within the detail/body of this rejection as having
"limitations ... essentially the same as in claim 7" (id. at 10). See also App.
Br. 26 (claim 7), 32 (claim 30). Further, claim 30 is denoted by another
statement of rejection (id. at 17) and correctly stated by the detail/body of
that rejection as having "limitations ... essentially the same as in claim 14"
(id. at 18). Accordingly, we address claim 30 with regard to the latter
rejection.
3
Appeal2018-005099
Application 13/957,849
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Shetty, Carpentier, Amaudov, and Tal et al. (US 6,625,612 Bl; Sept.
23, 2003) ("Tal"). Final Act. 13-14.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Shetty and Borshack. Final Act. 15-1 7.
Claim 14, 23, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Shetty, Borshack, and Tirpak et al. (US 2009/0307177
A 1; Dec. 10, 2009) ("Tirpak"). Final Act. 1 7-18.
ANALYSIS
1. Claims 1, 17, and 24
Each of independent claims 1, 1 7, and 24 requires generating a hash
value by executing a hash function on a data object. Appellant argues that
Shetty does not disclose what entity its hash function is performed on and,
therefore, does not teach or suggest the claimed hash value. App. Br. 16.
We are unpersuaded because, as the Examiner finds, Shetty's paragraph 240
teaches a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) that identifies a data object
and can be replaced with a hash value. Ans. 3. We agree with the Examiner
that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this hash value as both
identifying, and thus hashed from, the data object. See KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) ("[Obviousness] analysis ... can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would employ."); see also Borshack ,r 27 ("A hash code
[identifier] for a file is obtained ... by hashing the file.").
Each of claims 1, 17, and 24 also requires that a first portion of the
hash value identifies storage nodes used to store the data object. Appellant
argues that Borshack's hash string is mapped to blob containers representing
4
Appeal2018-005099
Application 13/957,849
logical entities, whereas a storage node is a physical device.
App. Br. 17. 6 We are unpersuaded because the Examiner cites Shetty as
teaching physical storage nodes and Borshack as teaching a first portion of a
hash value that identifies a location identifier for a data object. Ans. 4
(citing Shetty ,r 64; Borshack ,r,r 27, 38). Therefore, Appellant's argument
does not address the Examiner's specific findings. For example, the
argument attacks Borshack individually, instead of attacking the
combination of Borshack's hash value and Shetty's storage nodes. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot shownon-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejection[ is] based on combinations of references.").
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 1 7, and
24 as obvious over Shukla, Shetty, and Borshack.
2. Claim 12
Like claims 1, 17, and 24, independent claim 12 recites that a first
portion of a hash value identifies two or more storage nodes used to store a
data object. Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to this
6 Appellant also argues, only in the Reply Brief, that a cited first portion of
Borshack's hash value is not mapped to two or more storage node
identifiers, as claimed. Reply Br. 2. Because Appellant has not shown good
cause for first presenting this argument in the Reply Brief, the argument is
waived and not considered. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-
7 4 (BP AI 2010) (informative) ( absent a showing of good cause, the Board is
not required to address arguments in Reply Brief that could have been
presented in the principal Appeal Brief); 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); see also
Final Act. 3, 5---6 (citing Shukla's data location table (id. at 3) and
Borshack's first character of its hash value (id. at 5-6) as teaching or
suggesting the claimed mapping of the "two or more" storage nodes and first
portion of a hash value).
5
Appeal2018-005099
Application 13/957,849
limitationofclaim 12 as with claims 1, 17, and 24. App. Br. 15-18.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12 as obvious
over Shetty and Borshack for the same reasons as indicated above with
respect to claims 1, 17, and 24.
3. Claim 8
Independent claim 8 requires a pending data object identifier
("DOID") that comprises a hash value of a data object and conflict
value. Appellant argues that neither Shetty's object upload command nor
the respectively uploaded object is a hash value or conflict value, as found
by the Examiner. App. Br. 18-19. We are unpersuaded because the
Examiner finds Shetty's virtual object record includes: a hash value of a
respective data object; and an UUID that would distinguish the object from
another having the same hash value. Ans. 4-5 (citing Shetty ,r,r 102 (UUID),
104 (hash value); Spec. ,r 28 (meaning of"conflict value")). Appellant's
argument does not address these specific findings. For example, the
argument does not sufficiently address whether Shetty's hash value and
UUID are respectively a hash value and conflict value.
Claim 8 also recites a finalized DOID that is generated from the
pending DOID and mapped to a storage location. Appellant argues that
Carpentier's mapping table 410 does not map a hash value and conflict value
to a storage location, but rather maps a hash value to a node that stores a
respective hash-to-UID (unique identifier) table. App. Br. 19. We are
unpersuaded because the Examiner finds: claim 8 recites that the finalized
DOID--not the pending DOID (which comprises the hash and conflict
values}--is mapped to the storage location; and Shetty's UUID teaches the
finalized DOID because it is mapped to a storage location and generated
6
Appeal2018-005099
Application 13/957,849
from the virtual object record (which teaches the pending DOID). Ans. 5
( citing Shetty ,r 188). Appellant's argument does not address the Examiner's
specific findings. For example, the argument disregards whether claim 8
requires the finalized DOID to comprise the hash and conflict values (of the
pending DOID).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 as
obvious over Shetty and Carpentier.
4. Claims 5, 20, 27, and 32
Claims 5, 20, and 27 depend respectively from claims 1, 17, and 24
addressed above. Each of claims 5, 20, and 27 recites an application data
identifier that is mapped to a finalized DOID and refers to the data
object. Appellant argues that Shukla's object hierarchy portion, e.g., the
portion for photos as shown in Figure 6, is not a DOID or data object.
App. Br. 20. We are unpersuaded because the Examiner finds Shukla's
mapping of a base address ("http://notebook") to an object reference
("/Photos/Photos 1 ") teaches or suggests the claimed mapping. Ans. 6-7
(citing Shukla col. 13, 11. 1-10, 41--47). Appellant's argument does not
address the Examiner's specific findings. For example, the argument does
not sufficiently address whether Shukla's mapping of the base address to the
object reference teaches or suggests mapping to a finalized DOID and
reference to a data object.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 5, 20,
and 27 and claim 32 (that depends upon claim 27 and is not argued
separately) as obvious over Shukla, Shetty, and Borshack.
7
Appeal2018-005099
Application 13/957,849
5. Claims 14, 23, and 30
Claims 14, 23, and 30 depend respectively (and indirectly) from
claims 12, 17, and 24 addressed above. Each of claims 14, 23, and 30
requires sending the DOID to a second storage node if no response is
received within a specified time period. Appellant argues that Tirpak's
contact node represents an expert (i.e., a human being) and is, therefore, not
a storage node. App. Br. 22-23. We are unpersuaded because the Examiner
cites Shetty as teaching storage nodes and Tirpak as teaching the process of
redirecting a request from a nonresponsive node (i.e., device) to a next
node. Ans. 7-8 (citing Tirpak ,r,r 30, 42). Appellant's argument does not
address the Examiner's specific findings. For example, the argument attacks
Tirpak individually, instead of attacking the combination of Sherry's storage
nodes and Tirpak's redirecting of a request. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 14, 23,
and 30 as obvious over Shetty, Borshack, Tirpak.
6. Claims 3, 4, 7, 9-11, 13, 18, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 31, and 32
Appellant argues that the remaining dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 9-11,
13, 18, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 31, and 32 are allowable for the same reasons as
discussed with respect to an above claim from which it
depends. App. Br. 23. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejections of: claims 18, 21, 22, 28, and 29 over Shukla, Shetty, and
Borshack; claims 3 and 25 over Shukla, Shetty, Borshack, and Carpentier;
claims 4, 7, and 31 over Shukla, Shetty, Borshack, and Fujiwara; claims 9
and 10 over Shetty, Carpentier, and Amaudov; claim 11 over Shetty,
Carpentier, Amaudov, and Tal; and claim 13 over Shetty and Borshack for
8
Appeal2018-005099
Application 13/957,849
the same reasons discussed above with respect to the independent claim
from which it depends.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7-14, 17, 18, 20-25,
and 27-32 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9