Ex Parte Wade et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 30, 2018

14509749 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/509,749 10/08/2014
76444 7590
Setter Roche LLP
14694 Orchard Parkway
Building A, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80023
12/04/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gregory L. Wade
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.
857.003lcl 1018
EXAMINER
MILLS, PAUL V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2018 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):
uspto@setterroche.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY L. WADE and J. MITCHELL HAILE 1
Appeal2018-003656
Application 14/509,749
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Quantum
Corporation. See Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003656
Application 14/509,749
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-16. This application, serial number 14/509,749 (Appeal 2018-003656), is
a continuation of application serial number 13/459,451, which had a prior
decision on appeal (Appeal 2017-003095) affirming the rejection of all
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm. 2
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a data control system for a virtual
environment. Spec., Title. Claim 9, reproduced below, is representative of
the claimed subject matter:
9. A non-transitory computer readable medium having
instructions stored thereon for operating a data control system,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the data control
system, direct the data control system to perform a method of file
system access to a virtual machine environment, the method
compnsmg:
emulating a physical storage element by providing a file
system interface to contents of a plurality of data volumes in a
virtual machine environment, wherein the file system interface
represents the contents as contents of a file system in a standard
format used for physical storage elements;
receiving a file system write request for the file system
interface, wherein the file system write request comprises a write
request in a format that is standard for issuing instructions to
access data in the file system; and
converting the file system write request into an application
program interface (API) for the virtual machine environment to
import the data into the virtual machine environment.
2 We refer to the Specification, filed October 8, 2014 ("Spec."); the Final
Office Action, mailed December 15, 2016 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief, filed
July 17, 2017 ("Br."); and the Examiner's Answer, mailed November 27,
2017 ("Ans.").
2
Appeal2018-003656
Application 14/509,749
REFERENCES
The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Meng US 2004/0003316 Al Jan. 1, 2004
Hoogterp US 2005/0210218 Al Sept. 22, 2005
Debiez US 2006/0179325 Al Aug. 10, 2006
Marcy US 2008/0168183 Al July 10, 2008
Isaacson US 2010/0199216 Al Aug. 5, 2010
Logan US 2010/0250892 Al Sept. 30, 2010
Klapman US 2011/0113210 Al May 12, 2011
Le US 2012/0265959 Al Oct. 18, 2012
Andrey Mirtchovski & Latchesar Ionkov, K vmFS:
Virtual Machine Partitioning For Clusters and Grids,
2007 Linux Symposium, Volume Two, at 59 (2007)
(hereinafter "K vmF S ").
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1--4, 7-12, 15, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Logan, Le, and KvmFS. Final Act. 2-7.
Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Logan, Le, KvmFS, and Official Notice
evidenced by Isaacson, Hoogterp, Marcy, Klapman, Meng, and/or Debiez.
Final Act. 7-9. Final Act. 2-7.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-11) and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
3
Appeal2018-003656
Application 14/509,749
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-7) and concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue Logan discloses how a virtual file system is
displayed to a user interface but does not disclose providing a data utility
with read and write access to the contents of the file system as required by
the independent claims. Br. 6-7. The Examiner disagrees for two reasons.
Ans. 3-5. According to the Examiner, the Specification "employs the terms
'file system interface' and 'file system view' interchangeably, and ... FIG.
3 provides an illustration of the file system interface/view which appears
consistent with the manner in which file browser/explorer software present
hierarchical file system data." Ans. 3--4. Thus, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation of the disputed limitation consistent with the Specification,
Logan's user interface teaches or suggests the argued emulation of a
physical storage element by providing a file system interface to contents of a
plurality of data volumes in a virtual machine environment. Id at 4.
Secondly, "even if the claim did require the file system interface to be
provided to a 'data utility' /software (not claimed), Logan would still teach
the subject matter; disclosing . . . providing applications [with] access to the
virtual file system and receiving file operations from the applications." Ans.
5 citing Logan ,r,r 24, 41, 44, 66. Appellants do not reply.
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error. As found
by the Examiner, Logan discloses the virtual file system is configured to
communicate, not only using a graphical user interface as asserted by
Appellants, but also using an application. Ans. 5, quoting Logan ,r,r 41, 66.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner in finding Logan teaches or
suggests the argued file system interface.
4
Appeal2018-003656
Application 14/509,749
Appellants further contend Logan does not disclose a network file
system (NFS) write request and, therefore, fails to teach or suggest the step
of receiving a file system write request for the file system interface, wherein
the file system write request comprises a write request in a format that is
standard for issuing instructions to access data in the file system. Br. 7. The
Examiner responds, finding Logan discloses translating file system
operations to the standardized NFS format. Ans. 5-7. The Examiner further
finds:
[ A ]ny file system operation which alters the file system
inherently requires "writes" to the file system, e.g. a file system
cut & paste operation consists of a file system read ( read the
contents of the 'cut' file system entry), a first file system write
(write the contents to the 'paste' file system location), and a
second file system write ( to delete the 'cut' file system entry
from the original location).
Id at 7. Thus, according to the Examiner, Logan's drag & drop operation
modifies a file and is received in a format that is standard for issuing
instructions as required by the claims. Id. Appellants do not reply.
Appellants' contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error. In the
absence of evidence or argument to the contrary, we agree with the
Examiner in finding Logan's drag & drop operation teaches or suggests
receiving a file system write request in a format that is standard for issuing
instructions to access data and converted into an API command.
Appellants further argue neither Le nor K vmFS cure the argued
deficiencies of Logan. Because we disagree Logan is deficient, we do not
address Appellants' argument that Le and K vmFS fail to rehabilitate the
Examiner's rejections.
5
Appeal2018-003656
Application 14/509,749
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants' arguments are
unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Logan, Le, and KvmFS together with
the rejections of dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 which are not argued
separately with particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6