Ex Parte Lilibridge et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2014

12365792 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARK DAVID LILIBRIDGE,
EVAN R. KIRSHENBAUM,
CRAIG A. SOULES, and GEORGE FORMAN
____________

Appeal 2012-004564
Application 12/365,792
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-004564
Application 12/365,792

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–11 and 15–23, which are all the claims remaining in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A data processing apparatus comprising:
a memory; and
a scan controller to control scanning among a plurality of
data objects distributed among a plurality of distributed
electronic data storage systems, the scan controller to maintain
in the memory a data set of paired location identifiers and
intrinsic references corresponding to ones of the plurality of
data objects and to control scanning wherein redundant
scanning of duplicate data objects that have matching intrinsic
references and occur in multiple locations is avoided.

Prior Art
Wolff US 2003/0110258 A1 June 12, 2003
Palliyil US 2005/0132184 A1 June 16, 2005
Repasi US 2009/0328212 A1 Dec. 31, 2009

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1–11, 15–17, and 21–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wolff, Repasi, and Palliyil.
Claims 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Palliyil and Repasi.

Appeal 2012-004564
Application 12/365,792

3
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the
Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the following additional analysis further
supporting and emphasizing the Examiner’s findings and conclusions.

Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 5–8, 11, and 22
Appellants contend Wolff does not teach a scan controller to control
scanning among a plurality of data objects distributed among a plurality of
distributed electronic data storage systems. App. Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 5.
Appellants’ contention is inconsistent with Figure 4 of Wolff, which shows
scanner 100 to provide scanning for multiple file storage devices 110.
Appellants contend Palliyil teaches avoiding scanning of replica files
by having a single server perform the scanning, which, if combined with
Wolff, would result in Wolff not needing load balancing logic. App. Br. 12;
Reply Br. 6. Appellants’ contention is inconsistent with paragraph 90 of
Palliyil, which teaches scanning may be performed on a pool server or on
the client data processing system at which the resource is stored.
Further, the Examiner relies on Palliyil for teaching that comparing
hash values to avoid redundant scanning of replica files was known in the art
at the time of invention. Ans. 6–7. Appellants have not provided persuasive
evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s conclusion that combining
Palliyil’s teaching of comparing hash values to avoid redundant scanning
with the method for controlling scanning as taught by the combination of
Wolff and Repasi yields the predictable result of avoiding repetitive
Appeal 2012-004564
Application 12/365,792

4
scanning, reducing scan time, and increasing bandwidth (see Ans. 7).
Appellants do not separately argue claims 5–8, 11, and 22.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5–8, 11, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.

Section 103 rejection of claim 2
Appellants contend Repasi does not teach “the scan controller to
schedule scanning to allocate workload” as recited in claim 2. App. Br. 12–
13; Reply Br. 7–8. The Examiner finds Repasi teaches determining if an
entity is malicious during a range of operating usage, such as during a period
of low processor usage. Ans. 27. Appellants have not provided persuasive
evidence or argument to distinguish “schedule scanning to allocate
workload” as recited in claim 2 from determining if an entity is malicious
during a period of low processor usage as taught by Repasi.
We sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claim 3
Appellants contend Repasi teaches analyzing scan results and
initiating an action, such as quarantine, based on the scan results, but only at
a local level. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 8–9. Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence or argument to show that combining Repasi’s teaching
of analyzing scan results then performing an action such as quarantine with
the virus scanning methods of Wolff and Palliyil was “uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)).
Appeal 2012-004564
Application 12/365,792

5
We sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claim 4
Appellants contend there is no reason to combine the teachings of
Wolff and Repasi to arrive at a scan controller that is to “optionally and
selectively divide files into segments, each of which is to be scanned
separately” as recited in claim 4. App. Br. 14–15. In particular, Appellants
argue that Wolff does not teach dividing a file into segments. Id. However,
the Examiner relies on the teachings of Repasi (in combination with Wolff)
for teaching the limitation of claim 4 to divide a file into segments. Ans. 30.
Furthermore, Appellants’ argument that dividing a file into segments in
Wolff might result in a “bottleneck” (App. Br. 14) is unfounded and
unsupported. Therefore, Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the
Examiner’s findings.
We sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claim 9
Appellants contend Wolff does not teach scheduling “which of the
distributed electronic data storage systems is to execute the scan and when a
scan is to be executed” as recited in claim 9. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 9–10.
The Examiner finds balancing the load across a plurality of devices arranged
to perform malware scanning based, at least in part, on the use of (placement
of) the file cache relative to the malware scanning by a proxy device, as
taught by Wolff, teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 32. We agree with
the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner.
We sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2012-004564
Application 12/365,792

6

Section 103 rejection of claim 10
Appellants contend Repasi does not teach “a distributed hash table is
used to distribute the data set of paired location identifiers and intrinsic
references” as recited in claim 10. App. Br. 15–16. The Examiner finds the
database of Repasi teaches the distributed hash table within the meaning of
claim 10. Ans. 33. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or
argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding.
We sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 21 and 23
Appellants contend Palliyil does not teach “the scan controller is to
select an electronic data storage system from the plurality of distributed
electronic data storage systems to scan a data object stored thereon” as
recited in claim 21. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 10. According to Appellants,
scans taught by Palliyil are performed at a server. Reply Br. 10. The
Examiner finds Palliyil teaches this feature by matching a new hash value
with a stored hash value of a stored object to thereby determine that no new
scan is required (i.e., before a new virus scan is distributed to a proxy device
as in the combined teachings of Wolff). Ans. 34. Furthermore, Appellants’
contention is inconsistent with paragraph 90 of Palliyil, which teaches
scanning can be performed at the server or at the client storing the file to be
scanned. Appellants do not separately argue claim 23. App. Br. 17.
We sustain the rejection of claims 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2012-004564
Application 12/365,792

7
Section 103 rejection of claims 15 and 16
Appellants contend the combination of Wolff, Repasi, and Palliyil
does not teach “controlling scanning among a plurality of data objects
distributed among the plurality of distributed electronic data storage
systems” as recited in claim 15. App. Br. 17. In particular, Appellants
contend Palliyil does not teach avoiding redundant scanning of duplicate
data objects with matching intrinsic references occurring in multiple
locations. App. Br. 18. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 35–38) that, for
essentially the same reasons as claim 1, Appellants’ arguments for claim 15
are not persuasive. Furthermore, Appellants’ contention is inconsistent with
the Abstract of Palliyil, which teaches comparing hash values of matching
resources in a data processing network to avoid redundant scanning of
identical resources with identical hash values. Appellants do not separately
argue the rejection of claim 16.
We sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claim 17
Appellants present arguments for patentability of claim 17 (App. Br.
19) similar to those presented for claim 3, which we find unpersuasive. We
sustain the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 18–20
Appellants contend Palliyil does not teach “based on the
identification, control scanning of the data objects located on the data
storage systems so that, for the plurality of data storage systems, only one of
the first data object and the second data object is scanned, the scan executed
Appeal 2012-004564
Application 12/365,792

8
by one of the plurality of data storage systems” as recited in claim 18. Reply
Br. 12–13. In particular, Appellants contend the scans of Palliyil only take
place on the server. Appellants’ contention is inconsistent with paragraph
90 of Palliyil. Appellants do not separately argue claim 20. Appellants
present arguments for patentability of claim 19 (App. Br. 22) similar to those
presented for claim 2, which we find unpersuasive.
We sustain the rejection of claims 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1–11, 15–17, and 21–23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wolff, Repasi, and Palliyil is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Palliyil and Repasi 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc