Gary W. Grube et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 8, 2020

12942721 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2020)

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.
12/942,721 11/09/2010 GARY W. GRUBE CS00205 2211
89322 7590 06/08/2020
Garlick & Markison (PST)
100 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000
Austin, TX 78701
EXAMINER
ZHAO, YU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/08/2020 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):
MMURDOCK@TEXASPATENTS.COM
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARY W. GRUBE and TIMOTHY W. MARKISON
Appeal 2018-008670
Application 12/942,721
Technology Center 2100
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, LARRY J. HUME, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 10–13, and 19–24. See Final Act.
1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Specification filed
November 9, 2010 (“Spec.”), the Final Rejection mailed October 19, 2017
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed March 29, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed July 5, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed
September 4, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International
Business Machine. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008670
Application 12/942,721

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a selecting data storage facilities in a
plurality of dispersed storage networks. Spec. Abstract. Claims 1 and 10,
the only independent claims at issue, are reproduced below:
1. A method for execution by a processing module of a
computing device that is affiliated with a dispersed storage
network (DSN) computing system of a plurality of DSN
computing systems, the method comprises:
sending a request to store data from a user device of a first
DSN computing system of the plurality of DSN computing
systems to the first DSN computing system of the plurality of
DSN computing systems;
determining, by the first DSN computing system of the
plurality of DSN computing systems, when the data is to be
stored in the first DSN computing system of the plurality of DSN
computing systems;
when the data is not to be stored in the first DSN
computing system of the plurality of DSN computing systems,
accessing, by the first DSN computing system of the plurality of
DSN computing systems, a file directory that identifies the
plurality of DSN computing systems based on the request to store
data, wherein each DSN computing system of the plurality of
DSN computing systems includes a managing unit, an integrity
unit, and DSN memory that includes a plurality of dispersed
storage (DS) units;
coordinating with a second DSN computing system of the
plurality of DSN computing systems to store the data;
wherein the first DSN computing system of the plurality
of DSN computing systems and the second DSN computing
system of the plurality of DSN computing systems have different
dispersed error encoding parameters;
encoding a data segment of the data in accordance with a
dispersed storage error coding function of the second DSN
computing system of the plurality of DSN computing systems to
produce a set of encoded data slices, wherein the dispersed
storage error coding function performs forward error correction
(FEC) encoding to generate an encoded data segment and slicing
Appeal 2018-008670
Application 12/942,721

3
of the encoded data segment to generate the set of encoded data
slices;
writing the set of encoded data slices to DS units of the
second DSN computing system of the plurality of DSN
computing systems; and
updating the file directory to include an identity of the
second DSN computing system of the plurality of DSN
computing systems and an identity of the set of encoded data
slices.
Appeal Br. 12–13 (Claims App.).
10. A computer affiliated with a dispersed storage network
(DSN) computing system of a plurality of DSN computing
systems, the computer comprises:
an interface; and
a processing module when operably coupled functions to:
receive, via the interface, a request to store data from a
user device of a first DSN computing system of the plurality of
DSN computing systems;
determine, by the processing module, when the data is to
be stored in the first DSN computing system of the plurality of
DSN computing systems;
when the data is not to be stored in the first DSN
computing system of the plurality of DSN computing
systems,
access a file directory to identify the plurality of
DSN computing systems, wherein each DSN computing
system of the plurality of DSN computing systems
includes a managing unit, an integrity unit, and DSN
memory that includes a plurality of dispersed storage (DS)
units;
coordinate with a second DSN computing system of
the plurality of DSN computing systems to store the data;
wherein the first DSN computing system of the plurality
of DSN computing systems and the second DSN
computing system of the plurality of DSN computing
Appeal 2018-008670
Application 12/942,721

4
systems have different dispersed error encoding
parameters;
encode a data segment of the data in accordance
with a dispersed storage error coding function of the
second DSN computing system of the plurality of DSN
computing systems to produce a set of encoded data slices,
wherein the dispersed storage error coding function
performs forward error correction (FEC) [to] encode an
encoded data segment and to slice the encoded data
segment to generate the set of encoded data slices;
write the set of encoded data slices to DS units of
the second DSN computing system of the plurality of DSN
computing systems; and
update the file directory to include an identity of the
second DSN computing system of the plurality of DSN
computing systems and an identity of the set of encoded
data slices.
Appeal Br. 14–15 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Sawhney US 8,370,312 B1 Feb. 5, 2013
Bright US 2003/0120723 A1 June 26, 2003
Douceur US 2007/0168364 A1 July 19, 2007
Foster US 2008/0183975 A1 July 31, 2008
Zuckerman US 2010/0094974 A1 Apr. 15, 2010
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 10, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bright, Zuckerman, and Foster. Final Act. 7–20.
Claims 2–4 and 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bright, Zuckerman, Foster, and Douceur. Final Act. 20–
31.
Appeal 2018-008670
Application 12/942,721

5
Claims 20, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bright, Zuckerman, Foster, and Sawhney. Final
Act. 31–38.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments
for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Claims 1 and 10
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 10 as obvious over the
combination of Bright, Zuckerman, and Foster. Final Act. 7–20.
Specifically, the Examiner cites to Bright as teaching the first several
limitations of claims 1 and 10, but relies on Zuckerman as teaching or
suggesting “wherein the first DSN computing system of the plurality of DSN
computing systems and the second DSN computing system of the plurality
of DSN computing systems have different dispersed error encoding.” Final
Act. 7–13. In addition, the Examiner relies on Foster for teaching “an
integrity unit,” “encoding a data segment . . . ,” “writing the set of encoded
data slices . . . ,” and “updating the file directory . . . .” Id. at 13–20.
Appeal 2018-008670
Application 12/942,721

6
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that the prior art
discloses “(a) determining, in response to a request, whether or not to store
data in a first DSN computing system; (b) coordinating with a second DSN
computing system to store the data using different error encoding
parameters; and (c) an integrity unit.” Appeal Br. 6.
First, Appellant argues that Bright does not teach the claimed “request
to store data is received at a first DNS computing system, which system
determines whether it will store the data” because it describes receiving a
data set. Id. at 7. We determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand Bright’s disclosure of receiving a data set to encompass or
at least suggest a request to store the data. Bright ¶ 10 (“A distributed
network data storage method includes receiving a data set from a client . . .
and writing each of the data portions to a corresponding one of the device
portions.”). Indeed, Appellant concedes that “the Appellant’s ‘request to
store data’ would likely include the data,” indicating that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the request to store the data and
the data itself often overlap. Reply 3. We, therefore, are not persuaded that
this argument shows reversible error by the Examiner.
Second, Appellant argues that “Bright is describing only one of the
DSN computing systems of Appellant’s clam 1, as such the second DSN
computing system is not disclosed or taught by Bright” and, thus, does not
teach “coordinating with a second DSN computing system to store the data
using different error encoding parameters.” Appeal Br. 8. We are not
persuaded that this argument shows reversible error by the Examiner.
The Examiner explains that “[u]nder the broadest reasonable
interpretation, DSN computing system is broadly interpreted as [a]
Appeal 2018-008670
Application 12/942,721

7
computing system.” Ans. 9. Given this interpretation, the Examiner finds
that Bright’s plurality of servers 102 (2–m) qualify as the claimed second
DSN computing system. Id. In response, Appellant argues “even assuming,
arguendo, that Bright’s server 102 is the equivalent of a DSN computing
system . . . [i]t is simply not reasonable to argue that when server 102 of
Bright divides data into portions and sends it to other affiliated servers that is
somehow the equivalent” to the claim because “[s]uch an argument stretches
and contorts the term ‘data’ into a contradictory smorgasboard [sic].” Reply
5. We do not understand this argument to show that Bright’s servers 102 (2–
m) do not qualify as the claimed second DSN computing system under the
Examiner’s interpretation of the term.
The Examiner adds that Foster discloses coordinating with a second
DSN computing system to store the data. Ans. 9–10 (citing Foster ¶¶ 10,
47–48). Appellant responds that “Foster is simply describing the
fundamental distributed storage network (DSN),” but does not disclose
“DSN computing systems coordinating with each other.” Reply Br. 6. We,
however, determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood Foster’s disclosure of determining which servers the data should
be written to and subsequently communicating with the target servers such
that it writes the data to those servers (Foster ¶¶ 47–49) as teaching or
suggesting coordinating with a second system to store the data as claimed.
Appellant does not point to any language in the Specification, nor do we see
any disclosure that defines coordination between DSN computing systems to
require anything more than that involved in any data transfer between
systems. For example, the only use of the term within the Specification
appears to use the term broadly, consistent with facilitating the writing of
Appeal 2018-008670
Application 12/942,721

8
data in the customary manner. Spec. ¶¶ 30 (“For example, the DS managing
unit 18 coordinates the creation of a vault (e.g., a virtual memory block)
within the DSN memory 22 for a user device (for a group of devices, or for
public access).”). We, therefore, are not persuaded that this argument shows
reversible error by the Examiner.
Third, Appellant argues that Foster does not disclose the integrity unit.
Appeal Br. 8–9. Specifically, Appellant summarily concludes that Foster’s
disclosure that “each slice server may perform an integrity check on its
[own] stored data slice,” does not equate to the claimed “each DSN
computing system . . . includes . . . an integrity unit.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing
Foster ¶ 17). Appellant does not further explain why this disclosure is
insufficient.
The Examiner explains that the term “an integrity unit,” as claimed, is
broad enough to incorporate a unit implemented as “hardware, software
module or combination of software and hardware.” Ans. 11. Indeed,
according to the Examiner, “any unit that can perform the ‘integrity’
function can be broadly interpreted as ‘integrity unit,’” including the portion
of Foster’s slice server that performs an integrity check. Id. Appellant does
not address Examiner’s explanation regarding the integrity unit in the Reply
Brief. See Reply Br. We, therefore, are not persuaded that this argument
shows reversible error by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 10 as obvious over the combination of Bright,
Zuckerman, and Foster.
Appeal 2018-008670
Application 12/942,721

9
Claims 2–4, 11–13, and 19–24
The Examiner rejects claims 2–4, 11–13, and 19–24, each of which
depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1 and 10, over Bright,
Zuckerman, and Foster combined with either Douceur or Sawhney. Final
Act. 20–38. Appellant does not make any additional arguments for the
dependent claims. Appeal Br. 9–10. Thus, we also are not persuaded of
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2–4, 11–13,
and 19–24.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis/
Reference(s)
Affirmed Reversed
1, 10, 19, 22 103(a) Bright, Zuckerman,
Foster
1, 10, 19,
22

2–4, 11–13 103(a) Bright, Zuckerman,
Foster, Douceur
2–4, 11–
13

20, 21, 23, 24 103(a) Bright, Zuckerman,
Foster, Sawhney
20, 21, 23,
24

Overall
Outcome
1–4, 10–
13, 19–24

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED