Ex Parte Lewis

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

14074584 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/074,584 11/07/2013 Mark S. Lewis
49845 7590 03/29/2019
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.LOSUS 1 6473
EXAMINER
ALLEN,BRITTANYN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2019 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
Appeal2018-005258
Application 14/074,584 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 1-15 and 18-22. 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 a security interest assigned to Pacific Western Bank.
App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 16 and 17 have been cancelled and claims 18-22 were
added. Final Act. 2.
Appeal2018-005258
Application 14/074,584
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 processing a write request that includes a
data object, the write request issued by an application module
on an application node, the data object to be stored at one or
more storage nodes separate from the application node, the
method comprising:
at the application node, executing a hash function on the
data object to generate a hash value that includes a first portion
and a second portion;
at the application node, querying a hypervisor table
stored at the application node with the first portion to obtain a
master storage node identifier identifying a master storage node
at which the data object is to be stored;
sending the data object and the hash value from the
application node to the master storage node identified by the
master storage node identifier, the master storage node separate
from the application node;
at the master storage node, querying a master table with
the second portion to obtain a storage node identifier
identifying a storage node at which the data object is to be
stored, the storage node selected from a plurality of storage
nodes that are separate from the application node; and
sending the data object and the hash value from the
master storage node to the storage node identified by the
storage node identifier.
2
Appeal2018-005258
Application 14/074,584
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Andersen et al. (US 2009/0157684 Al; publ. June 18,
2009) ("Andersen"), Shetty et al. (US 2014/0149794 Al; publ. May 29,
2014) ("Shetty"), and Borshack et al. (US 2014/0089273 Al; publ. Mar. 27,
2014) ("Borshack"). Final Act. 3-11.
Claims 2, 3, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Andersen, Shetty, Borshack, and Tirpak
et al. (US 2009/0307177 Al; publ. Dec. 10, 2009) ("Tirpak"). Final Act.
11-13.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Andersen, Shetty, Borshack, and Mason et
al. (US 2010/0217948 Al; publ. Aug. 26, 2010) ("Mason"). Final Act.
13-15.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Andersen, Shetty, Borshack, and Carpentier et al.
(US 2013/0339314 Al; publ. Dec. 19, 2013) ("Carpentier"). Final Act.
15-16.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
overUmbehocker (US 7,818,515 Bl; iss. Oct. 19, 2010), Borshack, and
Nishikawa (US 2010/0135484 Al; publ. June 3, 2010). Final Act. 16-18.
Claims 18, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shetty and Borshack. Final Act. 18-22.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Shetty, Borshack, and Mason. Final Act. 23-24.
3
Appeal2018-005258
Application 14/074,584
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Shetty, Borshack, and Nishikawa. Final Act. 24.
ANALYSIS
1. Claims 1, 12, 18, and 21
Independent claim 1 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, cannot
teach or suggest the claimed hash value. App. Br. 17. We are unpersuaded
because, as the Examiner finds, Shetty's paragraph 240 teaches a
Universally-Unique Identifier (UUID) that uniquely 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 the UUID-type hash
value as 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.").
Independent claim 1 also requires that a first portion of the hash value
identifies a master storage node used to store the data object. Appellant
argues that Borshack's hash string is mapped to blob containers representing
logical entities, whereas a storage node is a physical device. App. Br. 19. 3
3 Appellant also argues, only in the Reply Brief, that the references do not
teach or suggest a hypervisor or mapping of a hash value's first portion to a
master storage node identifier. Reply Br. 2. Because Appellant has not
shown good cause for first presenting these arguments in the Reply Brief,
4
Appeal2018-005258
Application 14/074,584
Appellant further argues that Shetty does not address portions of hash
values. Id. 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 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.2d 413, 426
(CCP A 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejection[ is] based on combinations of
references.").
Additionally, Appellant argues that Shetty' s system does not
determine an identifier of a master storage node. App. Br. 19. We are
unpersuaded because the Examiner cites Borshack as mapping a first portion
of a hash value to a storage location. Ans. 4--5 ( citing Borshack ,r,r 27,
38). The cited portions teach: "[t]he first character of the hash string is used
to map into one of the 16 storage accounts" (Borshack ,r 27) each
comprising 256 blob containers (id. ,r 18); and "using a first portion of the
hash to identify a top level storage location" ( emphasis added) comprising
lower level storage locations (id. ,r 38). Appellant's argument does not
address these specific findings, e.g., assert a reason that Borshack's "storage
account" and "top level storage location" are not a master node.
the arguments are waived and not considered. See Ex parte Borden,
93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (absent a showing of
good cause, the Board is not required to address arguments in a Reply Brief
that could have been presented in the principal Appeal Brief);
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
5
Appeal2018-005258
Application 14/074,584
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as
obvious over Andersen, Shetty, and Borshack. Appellant argues that claims
12, 18, and 21 are allowable for the same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 20.
For the reasons indicated above, we also sustain the Examiner's rejections of
claim 12 as obvious over Andersen, Shetty, and Borshack and claims 18 and
21 as obvious over Shetty and Borshack.
2. Claim 11
Independent claim 11 recites in disputed part: "receiving the data
object from a master storage node, the data object to be stored in the storage
node." Appellant argues that Umbehocker does not teach or suggest
receiving a data object from a master storage node because, "[a]s the
Examiner acknowledges, Umbehocker discusses receiving write requests
from a storage consumer." App. Br. 21 ( emphasis omitted). The Examiner
responds with the following explanation of why Umbehocker's write request
delivers a data object from master storage node to another storage node.
The structure in Fig. 1 of Umbehocker is similar to the
specification description of a master storage node and
virtualization layer ([Spec. ,r 36]). Umbehocker teaches a
storage environment that stores data on storage devices
aggregated to create virtual devices ([Umbehocker Fig. 1,
elements 130, 140; col. 3, 11. 40-50]). . . . When a storage
consumer ( application node) performs operations to store data,
the data first goes to the virtual device group ( master storage
node) and then to the underlying storage devices (storage nodes)
([Umbehocker col. 3, 11. 54---61]).
Ans. 5---6. Appellant's arguments do not address these specific findings, e.g.,
assert a reason that Umbehocker's virtual device of aggregated storage
devices does not constitute a master storage node.
6
Appeal2018-005258
Application 14/074,584
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 as
obvious over Umbehocker, Borshack, and Nishikawa.
3. Claims 2, 3, 14, and 15
Claims 2, 3, 14, and 15 depend from one of independent claims 1 and
12, addressed above. Each of claims 2 and 3 requires that the hash value and
data object are sent to a second storage node. Each of claims 14 and 15
requires that the hash value is sent to a second storage node. Appellant
argues that these claims are allowable for the same reasons as independent
claim 1. App. Br. 25. For the reasons indicated above, we do not find those
arguments persuasive. Additionally, Appellant argues that Tirpak's cited
contact node represents an expert (human being) and is, therefore, not a
storage node. App. Br. 23. We do not find the additional argument
persuasive because the Examiner cites Shetty as teaching storage nodes and
Tirpak as teaching to redirect a request from a nonresponsive node (i.e.,
device) to a next node. Ans. 6-7. Appellant's argument does not address
the Examiner's specific findings. For example, the argument attacks Tirpak
individually, instead of attacking the combination of Shetty's storage nodes
and Tirpak's redirecting of a request. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 14, and 15 as
obvious over Andersen, Shetty, Borshack, and Tirpak.
4. Claim 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 addressed above. Claim 13 recites
"the master storage node receiving the data object from the storage node."
Appellant argues that "Borshack discusses retrieving a file [and, thus,] ...
7
Appeal2018-005258
Application 14/074,584
does not disclose or suggest" the above limitation. App. Br. 25 ( emphasis
omitted). The Examiner responds that Borshack's top level storage is a
master storage node that receives a data object from a storage node because
Borshack teaches "determining a top level storage location using the first
portion of the object hash ([Borshack ,r 38]) ... [and, o]nce a location is
determined ([id. ,r,r 42--43]) ... [, the master] node will receive the file when
it sends a request for the file." App. Br. 7-8. Appellant's arguments do not
address these specific findings, e.g., assert a reason that Borshack's top level
storage location does not request and receive, as above, the requested file.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 13 as obvious over
Andersen, Shetty, and Borshack.
5. Remaining Claims 4-10, 19, 20, and 22
Appellant argues that the remaining dependent claims 2-10, 19, 20,
and 22 are allowable for the same reasons as discussed with respect to an
above claim from which it depends. App. Br. 25. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's obviousness rejections of: claims 6, 9, and 10 over
Andersen, Shetty, and Borshack; claims 4 and 5 over Andersen, Shetty,
Borshack, and Mason; claims 7 and 8 over Andersen, Shetty, Borshack, and
Carpentier; claim 22 over Shetty and Borshack; claim 19 over Shetty,
Borshack, and Mason; claim 20 over Shetty, Borshack, and Nishikawa.
8
Appeal2018-005258
Application 14/074,584
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 and 18-22 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