11048458 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 2012)

Ex Parte Shah et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 26, 2012

11048458 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 2012)

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. 11/048,458 01/31/2005 Sunil Shah VRT0368US 6435 60429 7590 01/26/2012 CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP 11401 CENTURY OAKS TERRACE BLDG. H, SUITE 250 AUSTIN, TX 78758 EXAMINER MCCARTHY, CHRISTOPHER S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2113 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/26/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte SUNIL SHAH, KIRK L. SEARLS, and YNN-PYNG ANKER TSAUR ____________________ Appeal 2009-010726 Application 11/048,458 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2009-010726 Application 11/048,458 2 Representative Claim 1. A method of creating backup files having less redundancy, comprising: triggering a backup process; for each file to be backed up, creating a data segment; storing the data segment at a location in memory; creating an overhead stream having a pointer that identifies the location of the data segment; determining if the data segment is redundant to a previously stored data segment; if the data segment is redundant, deleting the redundant data segment; and updating the overhead stream pointer to identify the previously stored data segment that is identical to the deleted data segment. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krapp (US 6,899,297 B2) and Gold (US 6,785,786 B1). 2. The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Krapp, Gold, and Moulton (US 6,704,730 B2). ISSUE Does the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Krapp and Gold collectively would have taught or fairly suggested: creating an overhead stream having a pointer that identifies the location of the data segment; determining if the Appeal 2009-010726 Application 11/048,458 3 data segment is redundant to a previously stored data segment; if the data segment is redundant, deleting the redundant data segment; and updating the overhead stream pointer to identify the previously stored data segment that is identical to the deleted data segment as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS With respect to representative claim 1, we agree with Appellants that Krapp and Gold collectively fail to teach or suggest creating an overhead stream (i.e., a data structure) including a pointer identifying the location of a backup data segment and updating the pointer to identify a previously stored data segment identical to a deleted redundant data segment. (App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 2-5.) Although Krapp describes deleting redundant data and replacing deleted data with a link (pointer) (Ans. 4, 8-10), we do not agree that the Examiner has provided a sufficient explanation of how Krapp would have taught or suggested updating the pointer. Specifically, Krapp describes a process of deleting a redundant data block and replacing the deleted data with a link. (Ans. 4, 8-10; Krapp, col. 10, ll. 22-48.) Krapp also describes updating a data block identifier when the system detects possibly redundant data. (Ans. 4, 8-10; Krapp, col. 14, ll. 51-61; col. 16, ll. 58-64.) However, Krapp’s link and data block identifier are entirely distinct and unrelated – the data block identifier has nothing to do with the location of the undeleted data block (identical previously stored data) that is “pointed to” by the link. Gold does not cure the deficiency of Krapp. (App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 2-5.) The Examiner has not explained and it is not readily apparent how one of skill in the art would modify Krapp in view of Gold to provide a pointer Appeal 2009-010726 Application 11/048,458 4 that identifies the location of a particular stored data block and that can be updated to identify the location of an identical data block. Thus, we find no clear explanation, either in the references or the Examiner’s discussion of the rejection or responsive arguments, of creating a data structure including a pointer identifying the location of a backup data segment and updating the pointer to identify a previously stored identical data segment. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to conclude that the combination of Krapp and Gold would not have collectively taught or fairly suggested the disputed features as recited in Appellants’ claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Appellants’ independent claims 9 and 12 include limitations of similar scope. Dependent claims 2 and 4-8 (dependent on claim 1), 10 and 11 (dependent on claim 9), and 13 and 15-17 (dependent on claim 12) stand with their respective base claims. Thus, based on the record before us and for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, we find that the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of Krapp and Gold would have taught or suggested the disputed limitations recited in Appellants’ claims 2, 4-8, 10, 11, 13, and 15-17. Moulton does not remedy the noted deficiencies of the Krapp and Gold combination. Thus, we also find that the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of Krapp, Gold, and Moulton would have taught or suggested the disputed limitations recited in Appellants’ dependent claims 3 and 14. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-17. Appeal 2009-010726 Application 11/048,458 5 CONCLUSION OF LAW Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1- 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-17. REVERSED pgc