Ex Parte Ramaswamy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

12546954 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/546,954 08/25/2009 Anantha Keerthi Banavara RAMASWAMY
56436 7590 06/29/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82249520 4352
EXAMINER
KHOSHNOODI, FARIBORZ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANANTHA KEER THI BANA VARA RAMASWAMY and
ARUN AYANNA VIJAYAKUMAR1
Appeal2014-006933
Application 12/546,954
Technology Center 2100
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-006933
Application 12/546,954
The disclosed invention relates to differentiated processing of client
requests for files from a distributed file system. Spec. i-fi-1 6-7, Abstract.
Representative claims 1, 12, and 18, reproduced from the Claim
Appendix of the Appeal Brief, read as follows (disputed limitations in
italics):
1. A method comprising:
associating attribute information with a file system object
that is part of a distributed file system stored in a server system,
the attribute information including information indicating
relative priorities of plural clients, and information specifying a
criterion related to performing adaptive readahead of a data
portion in the file system object; and
in response to a request for the file system object from a
first client, accessing the attribute information associated with
the file system object, wherein the accessed attribute
information allows for assignment of a different priority for
processing the request for the file system object from the first
client as compared to a priority of a request for the file system
object receivedfi·orn another client, and the accessed attribute
information controls whether the adaptive readahead is
performed.
12. A server computer comprising:
storage media to store file system objects and attribute
information associated with corresponding ones of the file
system objects, wherein the attribute information associated
with a particular one of the file system objects includes
information indicating relative priorities of plural clients, and
information specifying a criterion related to performing
adaptive readahead of a data portion in the particular file system
object; and
a processor to:
receive, from a first client, a request for the
particular file system object;
2
Appeal2014-006933
Application 12/546,954
in response to the request, determine \'l1hether the
criterion related to performing adaptive readahead is satisfied;
in response to determining that the criterion is
satisfied, retrieving readahead data including the data portion
from the storage media in response to the request; and
in response to the request, using the information
indicating relative priorities to assign a different priority for
processing the request for the particular file system object from
the first client as compared to a priority of a request for the
particular file system object received from another client.
18. An article comprising at least one computer-readable
storage medium containing instructions that upon execution by
a computer system cause the computer system to:
store attribute information with a file system object of a
distributed file system, wherein the attribute information is to
indicate the following: readahead of data is to be performed in
response to a request for the file system object; and at least one
client is to be assigned a higher priority for accessing the file
system object as compared to at least another client; and
in response to receiving a request for the file system
object, access the attribute information to perform an action
associated with the file system object.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-15, and 17-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Basov et al. (US 2007/0179934 Al; published
Aug. 2, 2007) ("Basov"), Fair et al. (US 7 ,809 ,833 B 1; issued Oct. 5, 2010)
("Fair"), and Yueh et al. (US 8,065,723 B2; issued Nov. 22, 2011) ("Yueh").
Claims 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Basov, Fair, Yueh, and Haselton et al (US 2007/0027935 Al; published
Feb. 1, 2007).
3
Appeal2014-006933
Application 12/546,954
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief and the arguments in the Reply Brief. We
agree with Appellants' conclusions as to claims 12-15, 17, 22, and 23.
However, we disagree with Appellants' conclusions as to claims 1, 3-8, 10,
11, and 18-21. Specific findings and arguments are highlighted and
addressed below for emphasis.
Claims l, 3--8, 10, 11, 18-21
Appellants argue that the asserted combination of Basov, Fair and
Yueh does not provide any teaching or suggestion of attribute information
that includes both information indicating relative priorities of plural clients
and information specifying a criterion relating to performing adaptive
readahead of a data portion in the file system object, and the attribute
information is accessed in response to a request for the file system object
from a first client, and such accessed attribute information associated with
the file system object allows for assignment of a different priority for
processing the request for the file system object from the first client as
compared to a priority of a request for the file system object received from
another client, and the accessed attribute information associated with the file
system object controls whether the adaptive readahead is performed, as
recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 6. Specifically, Appellants argue that Yueh
does not teach or suggest attribute information including information
indicating relative priorities of plural clients and, where the accessed
attribute information allows for assignment of a different priority for
processing the request for the file system object from the first client as
compared to a priority of a request for the file system received from another
4
Appeal2014-006933
Application 12/546,954
client. See id. at 7. 1A .. ppellants assert that Yueh focuses on identifying
subsets of data to be restored, so that all of the data does not need to be
restored at each client. See id. at 7-9 (citing Yueh 1:50-51, 2:39--47, 2:57-
63, 3: 1-7, 4:9-12, 5:10-13). Appellants contend the teachings of Yueh
have nothing to do with attribute information indicating relative priorities of
plural clients. See id. at 9. Appellants further assert that Yueh also does not
provide any teaching or suggestion that the accessed attribute information
allows for assignment of a different priority for processing the request for
the file system object from the first client as compared to a priority of the
request for the file system object received from another client. See id. at 9-
10 (citing Yueh 5:54--57).
Appellants' arguments focus on the description of the attribute
information of claim 1. The attribute information recited in claim 1 as
"including information indicating relative priorities of plural clients," and
the accessed attribute information recited in claim 1 that "allows for
assignment of a different priority for processing the request for the file
system object from the first client as compared to a priority of a request for
the file system object received from another client," merely describe the
content of the attribution information. Similar to claim 1, the attribute
information recited in claim 18 "is to indicate ... at least one client is to be
assigned to a higher priority for accessing the file system object as compared
to at least another client" also describes the content of the attribute
information.
Our reviewing court has held that nonfunctional descriptive material
cannot lend patentability to an invention that would have otherwise been
unpatentable over the prior art. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
5
Appeal2014-006933
Application 12/546,954
2004); cf Jn re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (noting that
when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the
descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in
terms of patentability); King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267,
1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("[T]he relevant question is whether 'there exists any
new and unobvious functional relationship.'") (citations omitted).
The descriptions of the attribute information in claims 1 and 18 are
not functionally related to the method steps recited in the claims. The steps
recited in claim 1 (i.e., "associating attribute information with a file system
object" and "accessing the attribute information associated with the file
system object") are performed the same regardless of the specific content of
the attribute information. Likewise, the steps recited in claim 18 (i.e., "store
attribute information with a file system object of a distributed file system"
and "access the attribute information to perform an action associated with
the file system object") are performed the same regardless of the specific
content of the attribute information. In this regard, claims 1 and 18 are
similar to the claim in Ngai. That the attribute information includes
information indicating relative priorities of plural clients and the accessed
attribute information allows for assignment of a different priority for
processing the request for the files system object from the first client as
compared to a priority of a request for the file system object received from
another client, does not change the method steps recited in claim 1. It
merely describes a new, non-functional feature for the method that already
exists. Likewise, that the attribute information is to indicate at least one
client is to be assigned a higher priority for accessing the file system object
as compared to at least another client does not change the steps executed by
6
Appeal2014-006933
Application 12/546,954
the computer system recited in claim 1. It merely describes a ne\'lv', non=
functional feature for the executable computer system instructions that
already exists.
To find that the disputed limitations of claims 1 and 18 are entitled to
patentable weight would mean that each novel attribute information
representing different information content is sufficient to warrant a separate
patent even if the remainder of the claimed invention is unchanged. This
would result not only in Appellants' attribute information distinguishing
over the prior art, but would mean equally that other attribute information
representing different information content would distinguish over the prior
art, as would every single unique attribute information. The underlying
rationale is to prevent the repeated patenting of essentially a known method,
and executable computer system instructions by the mere inclusion of novel
non-functional descriptive material. See King Pharms., 616 F.3d at 1279
("The rationale behind this line of cases is preventing the indefinite
patenting of known products by the simple inclusion of novel, yet
functionally unrelated limitations."); cf In re Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339 ("If we
were to adopt N gai' s position, anyone could continue patenting a product
indefinitely provided that they add a new instruction sheet to the product.").
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings that the
combination of Basov, Fair, and Yueh teach or suggest the subject matter of
independent claims 1, and 18. See Final Act. 3---6. We are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments that the non-functional descriptive material of the
attribute information distinguishes these claims over the prior art.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 18.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10, 11, and 19-21 are not separately argued (see
7
Appeal2014-006933
Application 12/546,954
1A .. pp. Br. 5-13), and do not recite additional method steps or computer
system executable instructions functionally related to the attribute
information indicating relative priorities of plural clients. Therefore, for the
same reasons as claims 1 and 18, we sustain the rejections of claims 3-8, 10,
11, and 19-21.
Claims 12-15, 17, and 22
As applied to independent clam 12, we are persuaded by Appellants'
arguments addressing claim 1 that the combination of Basov, Fair, and Yueh
do not teach or suggest attribute information associated with the file system
object that includes information indicating relative priorities of plural
clients, and using the information indicating relative priorities to assign a
different priority for processing the request for the particular file system
object from the first client as compared to a priority of a request for the
particular file system object received from another client, as recited in
independent claim 12. See App. Br. 11; see also id. at 5-10 (addressing
claim 1 ). We recognize that, at first blush, our agreement with Appellants'
arguments as applied to independent claim 12 may appear to contradict our
disagreement with Appellants' same arguments applied to claims 1 and 18.
However, we note that in contrast to claims 1 and 18, the attribute
information recited in claim 12 is not merely descriptive. Rather,
functionality is conferred to the attribute information by the following
limitation of claim 12: "using the information indicating relative priorities
to assign a different priority for processing the request for the particular file
system object from the first client as compared to a priority of a request for
the particular file system object received from another client."
8
Appeal2014-006933
Application 12/546,954
For this reason, \Ve are persuaded by 1A .. ppellants' arguments that Yueh
does not teach or suggest attribute information that includes information
indicating relative priorities of plural clients. See App. Br. 7-9 (citing Yueh
1:50-51, 2:39--47, 2:57---63, 3: 1-7, 4:9-12, 5:10-13). Accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 12, and dependent claims 13-15, 17, and
22.
Claim 23
Claim 23 depends from claim 18 and further recites:
the attribute information further contains a predefined threshold
and a count of a number of accesses of a data portion in the file
system object, and wherein the instructions upon execution
cause the computer system to further: determine whether the
count exceeds the predefined threshold; and in response to
determining that that count exceeds the predefined threshold,
perform readahead of the data portion in the file system object
in response to the request that is for another portion of the file
system object.
The Examiner relies on Fair for teaching or suggesting the limitations
of claim 23. See Ans. 10-12 (citing Fair 2:56---67, 3:1---6, 12:58-13:11). We
agree with Appellants' arguments that Fair does not teach or suggest the
limitations of claim 23, but instead teaches that when a counter variable
exceeds a predetermined threshold the system forgoes predictive processing
steps of the readahead analysis phase and forgoes the readahead execution
phase. See App. Br. 12-13 (citing Fair 2:66-3:16, 12:58-13:11).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 23.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 10, 11, and 18-21.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 12-15, 17, 22, and 23.
9
Appeal2014-006933
Application 12/546,954
}Jo time period for taking any subsequent action in connection \'l1ith
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10