Ex Parte Mcclanahan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2014

11952586 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2014)

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.
11/952,586 12/07/2007 Edward D. MCCLANAHAN 2120-03400 1521
85421 7590 11/14/2014
Conley Rose, P.C.
P.O. Box 3267
Houston, TX 77253-3267
EXAMINER
CHANNAVAJJALA, SRIRAMA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2014 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 EDWARD D. MCCLANAHAN, RAJNI BALASUBRAMANIAN,
and SIVAKUMAR DARIMISETTY
____________

Appeal 2012-007825
Application 11/952,586
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1–25, which are all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellants identify Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. as the real party
in interest. (App. Br. 3.)

Appeal 2012-007825
Application 11/952,586

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to file migration operations in a
distributed file system, using stub files, which are metadata files containing,
for example, information identifying the location of a relocated data file.
(Abst.; Spec. ¶ 34.) Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
a) creating a first stub file on a target file server, the first stub
file created in a target directory, the first stub file
pointing to source data in a source directory on a source
file server;
b) creating a t-stub file at a root location of the source directory,
the t-stub file pointing to the target directory, the source
directory allowing access to source data only when
accessed due to the first stub file;
c) copying source data into a hidden directory on the target file
server, thus creating target data;
d) overwriting the first stub file by renaming the target data;
and
e) deleting source data from the source file server.
Claims 1–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lallier (US 2005/0216532 A1, published Sept. 29, 2005),
in view of Yakir et al. (US 2004/0049513 A1, published Mar. 11, 2004),
hereinafter Yakir. (Ans. 5–11.)
Claims 17–19 and 23–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lallier and Yakir, and also Fukuda et al. (US
2007/0014198 A1, published Jan. 18, 2007), hereinafter Fukuda. (Ans. 11–
16.)
Claims 20–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lallier and Fukuda. (Ans. 16–17.)
Appeal 2012-007825
Application 11/952,586

3
We refer to the Brief (“App. Br.” filed Aug. 15, 2011) and the Answer
(“Ans.” mailed Dec. 2, 2011) for the respective positions of Appellants and
the Examiner. Only those arguments actually and timely made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellants did not timely make in the Briefs have not been considered and
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).

ISSUES
Issue 1: Whether Lallier and Yakir teach or suggest “the source
directory allowing access to source data only when accessed due to the first
stub file” as recited by independent claims 1 and 9.
Issue 2: Whether Lallier and Yakir teach or suggest “replacing the
t-stub file with a second stub file” as recited by claims 2 and 10.
Issue 3: Whether Lallier, Yakir, and Fukuda teach or suggest
“invalidating cache information regarding the source data” as recited by
claim 17, and “invalidating cache information regarding the stub file” as
recited by claims 20 and 23.

ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding Lallier and Yakir
teach or suggest that the source directory allows access to source data only
when accessed due to the first stub file, as required by claims 1 and 9. (App.
Br. 10–11.) Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that this aspect of the limitation is taught or suggested in
Lallier and Yakir. (Ans. 18–19.)
Appeal 2012-007825
Application 11/952,586

4
Appellants argue that Yakir does not state that the stub file is the only
entity that allows access. Appellants argue that access to the source data file
in Yakir occurs “when the repository storage location . . . is double-clicked
by a user.” (App. Br. 11.) We are not persuaded. Appellants have not
provided any evidence in the reference for this statement. Indeed, given that
the stub file disclosed in Yakir is used to locate data migrated to “offline
storage,” it follows that offline files cannot normally be accessed directly,
but only via the stub file. (Yakir ¶¶ 4–5.) Appellants also argue that “the
first stub file of the claims points to source data not target data as in Yakir.”
(App. Br. 10.) However, Lallier separately discloses that “Host 110 begins
submitting data processing commands to the target storage system, and
ceases communicating with source storage system 115.” (Lallier ¶ 33.) This
too indicates normal access only via the stub file.
To the extent that Appellants are arguing that the cited art fails to
explicitly state that access can never occur other than via the stub file, we
note that the original Application did not disclose or claim any such absolute
requirement. We construe the claim requirement, that data can “only” be
accessed via the stub file, as referring to the condition of normal client/user
access.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1
and 9.
Issue 2
Dependent claims 2 and 10 require replacing the “the t-stub file with a
second stub file, the second stub file pointing to the target directory.” In his
rejection, the Examiner cited Paragraph 53 of Lallier, which discloses
replacing “the stub file with the de-migrated source file.” (Ans. 7–8.) The
Appeal 2012-007825
Application 11/952,586

5
Examiner also cited Paragraphs 10–11 and 61–69 of Yakir, which discloses
“generating a second stub file based upon information from the first stub
file, wherein the migrated data can be recalled using the second stub file, and
then deleting the first stub file.” (Ans. 19–20.) Appellants correctly point
out that the disclosure of Lallier is distinguished from the claim limitation
because the stub file is replaced by the data file, rather than a second stub
file. (App. Br. 11.) However, given the above-discussed disclosure of
Yakir, we agree with the Examiner that Yakir taken together with Lallier
teaches or suggests the limitation of claims 2 and 10, and accordingly we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Issue 3
Independent claims 17, 20, and 23 are directed to variations on
copying data from one location to the other, and further require invalidating
cache information after the relocation has been completed. In particular,
claim 17 requires “invalidating cache information regarding the source
data”; and claims 20 and 23 require “invalidating cache information
regarding the stub file.”
The Examiner rejected claims 17 and 23 as obvious in light of Lallier,
Yakir, and Fukuda, and rejected claim 20 as obvious in light of Lallier and
Fukuda. However, with respect to the disputed cache invalidation
limitations recited in these claims, the same analysis applies. In particular,
the Examiner relied on Paragraphs 132 and 134 of Fukuda, which discloses
erasure of stub files, as teaching or suggesting these cache invalidation
limitations. (Ans. 12, 14, 16, 20–21.) Appellants argue that “erasing stub
data involves an act of deletion while invalidating the cache does not.”
(App. Br. 12.) To the contrary, as the Examiner correctly stated, the
Appeal 2012-007825
Application 11/952,586

6
Appellants’ “own Specification discloses invalidating a cache by deleting
cache information,” and “Cache invalidation is widely known to one of
ordinary skill in the art as a process whereby entries in a cache are deleted.”
(Ans. 20.) Moreover, we agree with the Examiner’s reliance on Fukuda as
confirmation of this well-known practice, and note for example the teaching
in Fukuda of the deletion of cache content. (Fukuda ¶ 144.) Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claims 17, 20, and 22.

CONCLUSION
As discussed above, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 2,
9, 10, 17, 20, and 23 are sustained. The rejections of dependent claims 3–8,
11–16, 18–19, 21–22, and 24–25 were not argued separately with sufficient
particularity. (See App. Br. 11, 12.) Therefore, we also sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of: (1) dependent claims 3–8 and 11–16 over
Lallier and Yakir; (2) dependent claims 18–19 and 24–25 over Lallier,
Yakir, and Fukuda; and (3) dependent claims 21–22 over Lallier and
Fukuda.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–25 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)(1). See
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cdc