Ex Parte Reddy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

12130514 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/130,514 05/30/2008
131406 7590 04/01/2016
Gilliam IP PLLC (CA)
7200 N. Mopac
Suite 440
Austin, TX 78731
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chandra Reddy
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.
2586.003US 1 4114
EXAMINER
CHBOUKI, TAREK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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):
uspto@gilliamip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHANDRA REDDY, PRASHANT PARIKH, and
LIQIU SONG
Appeal2013-007713
Application 12/130,514
Technology Center 2100
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1-5, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Erickson et al. (US 7,761,425 Bl; issued July 20, 2010), Bauer
(US 2006/0271530 Al; published Nov. 30, 2006), and Bailey (US 6,967,802
Bl; issued Nov. 22, 2005). Ans. 3-12.
Claims 6-8, 10-14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Erickson, Bauer, Bailey, and Hirsch et al. (US
2006/0059207 Al; published Mar. 16, 2006). Ans. 12-20.
Appeal2013-007713
Application 12/13 0,514
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Erickson, Bauer, Bailey, Hirsch, and Passerini et al. (US 2007 /0088973 Al;
published Apr. 19, 2007). Ans. 20-22.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' claimed subject matter relates to "obtain[ing] current
signatures of data chunks and perform[ing] a proximity search of a library of
previous signatures as a function of the likely location of corresponding data
chunks. If a signature is found, the corresponding data chunk is identified as
not requiring backup." Spec. i-f 4. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced
below:
1. A computer implemented method comprising:
obtaining current signatures of data chunks;
performing a proximity search of a library of previous
signatures as a function of the likely location of corresponding
data chunks on a storage medium on a single computing
machine, the likely location being a function of corresponding
data chunks in a previous backup, wherein an assumption is
made that duplicate data is near original data; and
if a signature is found, identifying the corresponding data
chunk as not requiring backup.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-5, 16, 17, AND 19 OVER
ERICKSON, BAUER, AND BAILEY
The Examiner finds Erickson, Bauer, and Bailey teach all limitations
of claim 1. Ans. 3-5. The Examiner finds Erickson teaches performing a
search of a library of previous signatures as a function of the likely location
2
Appeal2013-007713
Application 12/13 0,514
of corresponding data chunks, the likely location being a function of
corresponding data chunks in a previous backup. Ans. 4 (citing Erickson,
col. 2, 11. 1-15; col. 5, 11. 30-52). The Examiner finds Bauer teaches
performing a proximity search as a function of the likely location of
corresponding data chunks on a storage medium on a single computing
machine. Ans. 5 (citing Bauer i-fi-1 42, 96). The Examiner finds Bailey
teaches an assumption is made that duplicate data is near original data. Ans.
5 (citing Bailey, col. 1, 11. 22-25; col. 2, 11. 53-58).
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. "[T]here is no disclosure in Erickson of performing a search of
the hash values, by either the client or the backup server, as a function of the
likely location of the data on the client or the instance store." App. Br. 9;
see also Reply Br. 1-2.
11. "Bauer's centralized directory is not a disclosure of the claimed
proximity search as a function of the likely location of data on a storage
medium on a single computer machine." App. Br. 1 O; see also Reply Br. 2
(stating "a plurality of nodes is not a single computer machine").
111. "Bailey makes no assumption that duplicate data is near
original data. Bailey only notes that a determination is made as to whether
original data or duplicate data is closest to the data transducer (Bailey,
column 2, lines 45-50)." App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 2-3.
We determine the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 1 based
on Erickson, Bauer, and Bailey collectively.
Regarding argument i, we agree with the Examiner's finding.
Erickson (col. 2, 11. 5-7) discloses: "The backup store may compare the
sorted local hash list to a list of hash values corresponding to data segments
3
Appeal2013-007713
Application 12/13 0,514
already stored in the backup store." The likely location of corresponding
data chunks, in Erickson, is Erickson's backup store. Thus, Erickson's
comparison of the sorted local hash list to the list of hash values for data
segments already backed up in the backup store discloses the argued "likely
location" claim language.
In reaching our decision, we note that Appellants' Specification does
not define the language "likely location of corresponding data chunks" but
does describe an embodiment. See Spec. i-f 17 ("[S]ignatures are searched as
a function of the corresponding likely location or proximity of the
corresponding blocks in a previous backup"). In light of the broad language
of the claims and disclosure, Erickson's backup store is the proximate
location of the corresponding blocks and thus reasonably describes the
recited "likely location of corresponding data chunks" of claim 1.
Regarding argument ii, we agree with the Examiner's finding. Bauer
(i-f 42) discloses: "[T]he client might locate a close or even the closest
replica." Bauer (i-f 96) discloses: "This is a way to return the closest
possible replica, as the search starts with the closest node. If it is in fact a
replica, the closest replica was found." Bauer's locating a replica teaches
the recited proximity search (searching as a function of likely location).
Further, although Bauer's multiple nodes are not a single computing
machine, Bauer meets the recited claim language because the process of
locating a replica teaches searching as a function of likely location on a
single computing machine. See Bauer, Abstract (emphasis added) ("The
function returns as a result at least one entity identifier, each entity identifier
representing an entity in the network that might provide the replica").
4
Appeal2013-007713
Application 12/13 0,514
In addition, although not relied on in affirming the Examiner's
rejection, we note that Erickson's single instance store also suggests the
recited storage medium on a single computing machine. See Erickson,
Abstract ("a backup server may further reduce the sorted list to a unique list
by removing hash values corresponding to data segments already residing on
the single instance store").
Regarding argument iii, we agree with the Examiner's finding. Bailey
(col. 2, 11. 53-58) discloses duplicate data located at a different offset than
the original data on the same tape media or on a different tape media. Data
located on the same tape media is "near" relative to data located on the
different tape media. The broad claim language does not preclude a finding
that Bailey teaches the argued limitation.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2-5, 16, 17, and 19, which are not separately argued with
particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 6-8, 10-14, 18, AND 20 OVER
ERICKSON, BAUER, BAILEY, AND HIRSCH
The Examiner finds Erickson, Bauer, Bailey, and Hirsch teach all
limitations of claims 6-8, 10-14, 18, and 20. Ans. 12-20.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for these claims. See
App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 6-8, 10-14,
18, and 20 for reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1.
5
Appeal2013-007713
Application 12/13 0,514
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 9 AND 15 OVER ERICKSON, BAUER,
BAILEY, HIRSCH, AND PAS SERINI
The Examiner finds Erickson, Bauer, Bailey, Hirsch, and Passerini
teach all limitations of claims 9 and 15.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for these claims. See
App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 9 and 15
for reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 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 ).
AFFIRMED
6