Ex Parte Motta

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 18, 2012

11449259 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GIOVANNI MOTTA
____________

Appeal 2010-000844
Application 11/449,259
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JASON V. MORGAN,
and MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-10 and 12-14. Claim 11 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-000844
Application 11/449,259

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to the firmware and software updates of
mobile devices (see Spec. ¶ [0005]).
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 5 are illustrative of the invention and read as follows.
1. A method of modifying an electronic device with a
file system from a first version V1 to a second version V2, the
file system comprising a plurality of files, the method
comprising:
preprocessing files in version V1 including selectively
defragmenting a portion of the file system based on selectively
comparing sizes of the files in version [V1] to sizes of files in version
[V2]; and
selectively updating files in version V1.

5. A method [for] updating multiple files in a file system
wherein a file is selected for updating in a[n] iterative loop if it is
expected to cause the smallest possible amount of defragmentation,
measured in terms of the occupied bytes moved in order to merge the
empty blocks currently available in the file system including
selectively comparing sizes of files in a current version to sizes of
files in an updated version.

Rejections
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ng
(US 6,131,096).
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Cannon (US 6,021,415).
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ng and Cannon.
Appeal 2010-000844
Application 11/449,259

3
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ng, Cannon, and Kataoka (US 6,760,730 B1).
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ng, Cannon, and MemoryManagement.org
(http://web.archive.org/web/20020313115607/http://www.memorymanagem
ent.org/glossary, . . . /glossary/b.html, . . . ./glossary/f.html, 19 pp. 2003).
Claims 8-10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ng, Cannon, MemoryManagement.org, and Lauria (US
2003/0172094 A1).
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ng, Cannon, MemoryManagement.org, Lauria, and
Charikar (Moses Charikar, “Greedy Approximation Algorithms for Finding
Dense Components in a Graph,” Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg 2000,
pp. 84-95).
The Examiner’s Findings
With respect to claim 5, the Examiner finds that Ng discloses
selecting a file in a file system for updating in an iterative loop (Ans. 4)
(citing Ng, col. 9, ll. 51-60). The Examiner also finds that Cannon discloses
the same limitations identified above (Ans. 5) (citing Cannon, col. 17, ll. 1-
25 and 49-52). However, the Examiner explains that the claim feature “if it
is expected to cause the smallest possible amount of defragmentation,
measured in terms of the occupied bytes moved in order to merge the empty
blocks currently available in the file system including selectively comparing
sizes of files in a current version to sizes of files in an updated version”
describes an intended result and is not given patentable weight (see Ans. 4-
5).
Appeal 2010-000844
Application 11/449,259

4
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ng discloses all the
claim features except for the step of “selectively defragmenting a portion of
the file system based on selectively comparing sizes of the files in version
V1 to sizes of files in version V2” for which the Examiner relies on Cannon
(Ans. 6-7)(citing Cannon, col. 17, ll. 1-25).
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that the claim 5 feature which was not given
patentable weight by the Examiner “positively modifies the limitation given
patentable weight by the Examiner of ‘a file is selected for updating in a[n]
iterative loop if . . .’” (App. Br. 8). Appellant further asserts that the above-
discussed limitations are not merely reciting an intended use because these
features also include the positive limitation of “selectively comparing sizes
of files in a current version to sizes of files in an updated version” which is
used to determine if any defragmentation has occurred (App. Br. 8; Reply
Br. 2-3).
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 over Ng and Cannon, Appellant
points out that relying on Cannon for disclosing the step of selectively
comparing file sizes, which the Examiner found to be absent in Ng, indicates
that Ng does not anticipate the subject matter of claim 5 which includes the
comparing step (App. Br. 9). Appellant further argues that the portions cited
by the Examiner in the Abstract and column 17 of Cannon indicate that
reclamation is performed to regain the wasted space between managed files
as well as the space occurring within those files when some parts of the files
are deleted, which is not the same as the claimed updating based on
comparing file sizes or if the smallest amount of defragmentation is expected
(App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4).
Appeal 2010-000844
Application 11/449,259

5
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellant’s contentions above that the claim feature “if
it is expected to cause the smallest possible amount of defragmentation,
measured in terms of the occupied bytes moved in order to merge the empty
blocks currently available in the file system including selectively comparing
sizes of files in a current version to sizes of files in an updated version”
should be given patentable weight. As argued by Appellant (App. Br. 8;
Reply Br. 2-3), the disputed features modify the limitation related to file
selection and include the positive limitation of selectively comparing file
sizes to determine if any defragmentation has occurred (see claim 5).
Therefore, we agree with Appellant that Ng does not anticipate claim 5
because, as admitted by the Examiner, the step of selectively comparing the
file sizes is absent in Ng.
We also agree with Appellant (App. Br. 9) that Cannon merely
compares the storage space between the managed files (see col. 17, ll. 1-25)
instead of comparing the files sizes, as required by claims 1 and 5. The
Examiner’s cited portions in column 17, lines 24-25 of Cannon, merely
describe a table reflecting the results of the reclamation process and
showing the file attributes or information, such as the new “original size”
and matching “active size.” As such, although Cannon updates a database to
reflect the results of the reclamation after the process is complete, the actual
file consolidation or “reconstruction” involves comparing and managing the
“wasted space among managed files” (see col. 17, ll. 1-13). Therefore,
Cannon does not disclose the step of updating multiple files in a file system
including selectively comparing file sizes recited in claims 1 and 5.

Appeal 2010-000844
Application 11/449,259

6
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, because Ng and Cannon do not disclose the
disputed limitations, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1
and 5, as well as independent claim 6 which recites a limitation similar to
that of claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain any of the rejections under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, which rely on Ng and/or Cannon for disclosing
the above-discussed limitations.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10 and 12-14 is
reversed.

REVERSED

msc