Ex Parte Peretz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 17, 2018

13335860 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/335,860 12/22/2011
29989 7590 07/19/2018
HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM LLP
1 ALMADEN BOULEVARD
FLOOR 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
Noam Peretz
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.
50325-1772 6205
EXAMINER
MOBIN, HASANUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2018 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NOAM PERETZ and TOMER HAREL
Appeal2017-011714
Application 13/335,860
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-011714
Application 13/335,860
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-21, 23, and 25-29. Claims 4,
6, 13, 15, 22, and 24 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants 'Disclosed Invention
Appellants' disclosed invention monitors replication lag between
geographically dispersed sites. Spec. ,r 14. A primary site may include a
folder containing files representing data that is to be backed up at a remote
site, where the primary and remote sites comprise computing devices. Spec.
,r 24--25. In operation, a local timestamp is inserted into the folder and the
folder, along with the timestamp, is replicated to the remote site. Spec.
,r,r 30-33. The timestamp for the folder may subsequently be updated at the
primary site. Spec. ,r,r 34--35. Thereafter, the primary site may request the
remote site send the replicated timestamp back to the primary site, such that
the updated timestamp may be compared with the received replicated
timestamp to determine whether the difference between timestamps-i.e.,
the replication lag-is greater than a threshold value. Spec. ,r,r 36-41.
1 Appellants identify Cisco Systems, Inc. as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
2
Appeal2017-011714
Application 13/335,860
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer implemented method for detecting replication
lag comprising:
generating and storing a local timestamp in an electronic
folder at a first computer based on a clock of the first computer;
in response to a replication triggering event, replicating the
electronic folder, including the local timestamp generated by the
first computer, to one or more target computers;
in response to an update triggering event, updating the
local timestamp in the electronic folder at the first computer
based on the clock of the first computer;
in response to a detection triggering event, the first
computer receiving one or more timestamps by requesting at
least a portion of the electronic folder representing the local
timestamp generated by the first computer from at least one
target computer of the one or more target computers; and
in response to determining that a time difference between
the one or more of received timestamps and the local timestamp
exceeds a threshold value, the first computer generating a system
event;
wherein the threshold value is based at least in part on
previously recorded replication lags between the first computer
and the one or more target computers.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-21, 23, and 25-27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2007/0168516 Al;
3
Appeal2017-011714
Application 13/335,860
published Jul. 19, 2007), Rajaa (US 9,110,918; issued Aug. 18, 2015), and
Holenstein (US 2004/0133591 Al; published Jul. 8, 2004).
Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Liu, Rajaa, Holenstein, and Steele (US 6,282,175; issued
Aug. 28, 2001 ).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 3-13) in light
of Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-13) and the
Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-5) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the
Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-
7). With regard to representative independent claim 1, we adopt as our own
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We
highlight the following additional points.
Appellants contend none of the cited references teach "in response to
a replication triggering event, replicating the electronic folder, including the
local timestamp generated by the first computer, to one or more target
computers," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5-9. In particular, Appellants
argue Liu does not teach "the local timestamp included in the electronic
folder is also replicated to the target computer"; rather, Liu "teaches away
from the claimed approach." App. Br. 6. We disagree.
Liu describes a resource replication system in which "[a] replica
group comprises a set of resources which are replicated on machines
participating in the replica group." Liu, ,r 24. "For each resource, resource
4
Appeal2017-011714
Application 13/335,860
metadata may include ... a clock value to reflect the time a change
occurred." Liu, ,r 30. Further, "[t]ransmitting the resource metadata is done
so that the destination machine may reflect the metadata included on the
source machine in its subsequent replication activities." Id. In one
embodiment, Liu describes that "a member may store a timestamp generated
using a local system clock." Liu, ,r 61. "With timestamps, each replicated
folder may have an associated record ... in its metadata store. Among other
fields included in the record, the record may include the timestamp, for
example, to reflect the freshness of the record's corresponding replicated
folder." Liu, ,r 63. In short, Liu describes transmitting resource metadata,
which can include a timestamp, along with resource data when
synchronizing member machines of a replica group, which we find suggests
the claim 1 limitation "in response to a replication triggering event,
replicating the electronic folder, including the local timestamp generated by
the first computer, to one or more target computers."
Appellants also argue Rajaa does not teach replicating an electronic
folder including a timestamp. App. Br. 8. Although we find Liu suggests
the timestamp replication feature of claim 1, as discussed above, we
nevertheless address Appellants' argument regarding Rajaa and find Rajaa
also suggests the argued timestamp replication feature.
Rajaa describes a system in which mount points on a primary site are
replicated to a secondary site so as to meet a recovery point objective, which
is "an acceptable level of data loss, measured in time ( e.g., the length of time
during which, in the case of a primary site disaster, changes will be
committed to the primary site but will never successfully be made to the
secondary site)." Rajaa, col. 1, 11. 23-39; col. 3, 11. 32-39. Rajaa further
5
Appeal2017-011714
Application 13/335,860
describes "[ u ]pdate module 102 may be programmed to periodically update
a time value on each mount point in the set of mount points on the primary
site" and "[ m ]easurement module 103 may be programmed to measure a
replication lag by calculating a difference between the time value on the
mount point and a replication of the time value on a corresponding mount
point on the secondary site." Rajaa, col. 8, 11. 60-64. We find Rajaa's
description of "a replication of the time value on a corresponding mount
point on the secondary site" (id.) suggests "replicating the electronic folder,
including the local timestamp generated by the first computer, to one or
more target computers," as recited in claim 1.
Appellants also contend none of the references teach "in response to
an update triggering event, updating the local timestamp in the electronic
folder at the first computer based on the clock of the first computer," as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9-10. We disagree.
Rajaa describes an update module 102 that "may periodically retrieve
the current time from a clock device in computing system 500 of primary
site 404 and may update time value 534 and/or 538 with the current time,"
where "the time value may include a time stamp." Rajaa, col. 12, 11. 1-24.
Appellants argue Rajaa does not update a timestamp "in response to an
update triggering event," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9. However, claim
1 does not require any particular "update triggering event." We find that
Rajaa's description of periodically retrieving a current time for updating a
timestamp meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of an "update
triggering event," because one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that Rajaa's update module 102 initiates the retrieving of a
6
Appeal2017-011714
Application 13/335,860
current time based on the execution of some instruction at a given time-i.e.,
an "update triggering event." See Rajaa, col. 12, 11. 1-24.
Finally, Appellants contend the Examiner has failed to provide a
sufficient rational underpinning to the proposed combination of references.
App. Br. 10-12. The Examiner states it would have been obvious to
combine Rajaa with Liu to provide a system that can meet a recovery point
objective that sets an acceptable level of data loss during disaster recovery.
Final Act. 5. The Examiner also states it would have been obvious to
combine Holenstein with Liu and Rajaa to provide "a queue inspection
scheme for determining if the replication process is functioning properly."
Final Act. 6. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rationales for
combining the references.
Rajaa's setting of a recovery point objective would ensure that Liu's
system would limit the replication lag between member machines of a
replica group to an acceptable amount. Holenstein's queue inspection
scheme, in which a replication engine synchronizes a database at an
originating node with a target database at another node by sending
transactions in the queue of the originating node to the target database
(Holenstein, ,r 263), would be similarly beneficial in Liu. That is, by
examining the queue of the originating node to determine whether the queue
is "draining 'too slowly' (i.e., replication latency is above a threshold)" (id.),
Liu's member machines would be able to determine whether database data
could be synchronously replicated with an acceptable amount of replication
latency.
Moreover, given that Liu, Rajaa, and Holenstein all describe data
replication systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered
7
Appeal2017-011714
Application 13/335,860
applying the techniques taught in Rajaa and Holenstein to Liu because "if a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007).
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2, 3, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-21, 23, and 25-29 not specifically argued
separately.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-
3, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-21, 23, and 25-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-21, 23,
and 25-29 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
8