Ex Parte Wormley et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2016

12130141 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/130,141 05/30/2008
121363 7590 03/31/2016
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
(Adobe Systems Incorporated)
Intellectual Property Department
2555 Grand Blvd
Kansas City, MO 64108
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew A. Wormley
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.
2055.155US1 3394
EXAMINER
COSBY, LAWRENCE V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2016 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):
IPDOCKET@SHB.COM
IPRCDKT@SHB.COM
kspringer@shb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW A. WORMLEY and JOHN L. FARMER
Appeal2014-006046
Application 12/130,141
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI 1\vLAJ\.JTIS 1\1ERCADER, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-006046
Application 12/130,141
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a system and method for an
expandable computer storage system. When additional storage units are
added to the storage array, a newer configuration file is added to the hasher
system that allows the new storage units to be used. However, the older
configuration file is kept and used as a back-up in case a file cannot be
located using the new configuration file. Over time, all the file files will be
moved from a location specified by the older configuration file to a new
location specified by the newer configuration file. See Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of implementing an expandable storage system, said
method comprising:
receiving a request for an item in a storage system, said request
including an identifier of said item, said storage system comprising
more than one storage unit;
selecting a first storage unit to examine for said item by
combining said identifier of said item with data from a current storage
configuration file, the current storage configuration file storing data
identifying files stored in storage units, including the first storage unit,
added to the expandable storage system since a first previous storage
configuration as represented in a first previous storage configuration
file;
returning said item from said first storage unit in response to said
request if said item is located in said first storage unit;
selecting a second storage unit to examine for a said item by
combining said identifier of said item with data from the first previous
storage configuration file, the first previous storage configuration file
2
Appeal2014-006046
Application 12/130,141
storing data identifying files stored in storage units, including the
second storage unit, prior to addition of storage units of the current
storage configuration as represented in the current storage
configuration file;
returning said item from said second storage unit in response to
said request if said item is located in said second storage unit; and
wherein a storage configuration of all data stored in the
expandable storage system is a sum of the current storage configuration
file and the first previous storage configuration file.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Coates
Hager
US 7 ,266,555 B 1 Sept. 4, 2007
US 2007 /0226320 Al Sept. 27, 2007
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-16, and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) as being anticipated by Hager.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hager in view Coates.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Hager
teaches a "current storage configuration file," and "first previous storage
configuration file," as recited in claim 1.
3
Appeal2014-006046
Application 12/130,141
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-21 rejected under 35 U.S. C § 102(e)
Appellants argue that Hager fails to disclose the claimed "current
storage configuration file," and the claimed "first previous storage
configuration file," wherein each of these "storage configuration files"
identify files stored in storage units, as recited by claim 1 (App. Br. 11 ).
Appellants further argue that Hager also fails to provide a disclosure of a
combination of the current and first previous storage configuration files, "the
sum of which provides a storage configuration of all data stored in a
storage system," as required by independent claim l (App. Br. 11-12).
Appellants argue that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation
standard, the language of claim l means that the current and first previous
configuration files relate to the arrangement of the files stored in particular
storage units of a storage system (see App. Br. 14). According to
Appellants, Hager does not discuss the "Vnum" or any other type of
identifier as identifying an arrangement (or configuration) of files stored on
a file system (App. Br. 14). Appellants assert that the "deltas" referenced by
Hager are simply the difference between two versions of a particular file and
these "deltas" are clearly not "differences between the previous
configurations and new configurations [that] are created and are utilized to
both expand storage and create copies for various data retrieval uses" (App.
Br. 14).
We do not agree with Appellants' arguments. We agree with the
Examiner's reasoning that Hager discloses the use of directories, which are
data structures that contain file configurations (Ans. 16). We agree with the
Examiner that a directory is a storage configuration file because the
directory contains data regarding the files that are being stored (Ans. 16).
4
Appeal2014-006046
Application 12/130,141
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Hager discloses wherein deltas
and VNums are the differences between a previous configuration file and a
current configuration file (Ans. 16; Hager paras. 39--45). We further agree
with the Examiner's findings that Hager also discloses wherein system
configuration data sets are created that map where each file is stored and
what versions of the files are stored (Ans. 16; Hager paras. 87, 89, 91, 143-
144). Deltas of the differences between the previous configurations and new
configurations are created and are utilized to both expand storage and create
copies for various data retrieval uses (Ans. 16-17). Hager goes further to
disclose the use of Version numbers, which are numbers assigned to
directories (Ans. 17). Here, these VNums include numbers that change
every time there is a change to the file, directory or block (Ans. 17). These
VNums would serve to mark either a current storage configuration file such
as a directory or a previous storage configuration file such as an outdated
directory (Ans. 17; Hager paras. 39, 45). We further agree with the
Examiner that Hager also discloses a version management utilized to
maintain the data of files, directories, or blocks (Ans. 17). Therefore, a
modified version would be a current configuration of a file and a previously
cached version of a file would be a first previous configuration file (Ans. 17;
Hager paras. 87-88, 91 ). Hager is able to utilize version numbers and deltas
to determine the differences between previously stored/cached file storage
information (i.e., directory) and the current file storage information (i.e.,
VNum or delta directory) (Ans. 17).
Appellants further argue that, according to their invention, when the
requested item is located, the requested item may then be directly accessed
using the mapping information provided by the storage configuration files
5
Appeal2014-006046
Application 12/130,141
without having to traverse different cache levels over a link, such as a
network (App. Br. 11-12).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument as this difference is
not claimed, and thus, the argument is not commensurate in scope with the
claim language (see claim 1 ).
Appellants further argue that under the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard, the language of claim l means that the current and
first previous configuration files relate to the arrangement of the files stored
in particular storage units of a storage system (App. Br. 14). Hager does not
discuss the "Vnum" or any other type of identifier as identifying an
arrangement (or configuration) of files stored on a file system (App. Br. 14).
Moreover, the "deltas" referenced by Hager are simply the difference
between two versions of a particular file and these "deltas" are clearly not
"differences between the previous configurations and new configurations
[that] are created and are utilized to both expand storage and create copies
for various data retrieval uses" (App. Br. 14).
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. We agree with the
Examiner that Hager discloses the use of directories which are data
structures that contain file configurations because a directory is a storage
configuration file as the directory contains data regarding the files that are
being stored (Ans. 16), and thus, constitutes an arrangement of files.
Furthermore the Vnum and Deltas in Hager, do not just signify different
versions or differences between files, but also changes in file directories (see
Ans. 17; paras. 39, 45). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Hager's file
system is capable of creating a configuration for the directory of files at both
a current state (i.e., VNum or Delta file directory) and a previous state (i.e.,
file directory) (Ans. 17; paras. 39--45).
6
Appeal2014-006046
Application 12/130,141
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 2, 4--9, 11-16, and 18-21, which
were not argued separately.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a)
We also affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 10, and 17 not
argued separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Hager teaches a "current
storage configuration file," and "first previous storage configuration file," as
recited in claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21 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
7