International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 21, 2020

2019001562 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 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.
14/361,982 05/30/2014 Yoshikuni Murakami JP920110063US1 4507
54858 7590 07/21/2020
IBM CORP. (WIP)
c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C.
445 CRESTOVER CIRCLE
RICHARDSON, TX 75080
EXAMINER
KNAPP, JUSTIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2112
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/21/2020 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOSHIKUNI MURAKAMI
Appeal 2019-001562
Application 14/361,982
Technology Center 2100
BEFORE JOSEPH L. DIXON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 6–8, and 13–28. Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001562
Application 14/361,982
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a detecting loss of data during data transfer
between information devices. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of detecting data loss in transfer data between a
first information device and a second information device, the
method comprising:
receiving, by a second processor in the second information
device, the transfer data sent by a first processor of the first
information device, wherein the transfer data comprises
segmented data pieces segmented into pieces in a temporal
transfer direction, wherein each segmented data piece in the
segmented data pieces comprises a write hash value, wherein the
segmented pieces of data of the transfer data are stored in a
second buffer of the second information device, and wherein
each write hash value for each segmented data piece is stored in
a dedicated buffer in the second information device by
associating the write hash value with the segmented data piece
included in the transfer data thereby forming a write hash value
associated with the segmented data piece; and
for each segmented data piece in the segmented data
pieces as it is received by the second processor in the second
information device:
reading, by the second processor in the second information
device, the segmented data piece stored in the second buffer;
generating, by the second processor in the second
information device, a hash value for the segmented data piece;
storing, by the second processor in the second information
device, the generated hash value in the dedicated buffer in the
second information device as a read hash value associated with
the segmented data piece;
comparing, by the second processor in the second
information device, the write hash value associated with the
segmented data piece and the read hash value associated with the
segmented data piece;
determining, by the second processor in the second
information device, that data has been lost from the transfer data
Appeal 2019-001562
Application 14/361,982
3
at a time of transfer of the segmented data piece in response to
the write hash value associated with the segmented data piece
and the read hash value associated with the segmented data piece
not matching in the comparison; and
canceling, by the second processor in the second
information device, subsequent segmented data pieces of the
transfer data from being transferred in response to determining
that data has been lost.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Reddy et al. US 2009/0228680 A1 Sept. 10, 2009
Desai et al. US 2012/0209811 A1 Aug. 16, 2012
Yuasa JP 2004-326552A Nov. 18, 2004
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13–17, 19–24, and 26–28 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Desai in view of Yuasa.
Claims 7, 18, and 25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Desai and Yuasa further view of Reddy.

OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
With respect to independent claims 1, 16, and 23, Appellant argues
the claims together. See Appeal Br. 6. Based on Appellant’s arguments and
our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we select independent
claim 1 as the representative claim for the group and will address
Appellant’s arguments presented in both the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). Dependent claims 8, 19, and 26
stand or fall with representative claim 8. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-001562
Application 14/361,982
4

Independent claims 1, 16, and 23
Appellant argues that Appellant is not arguing the references
individually, but addressing each of the teachings in the alleged
combination. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues that the Desai reference
teaches “the source file is transferred to the backup media in sub-blocks of
a predetermined size, such as 32 KB source files, until the 2 MB or less
block is achieved” and “accumulates the hash value of the 32 KB source
file just written with hash values as generated from preceding 32 KB
source file data records (if any) in the 2 MB block.” Appeal Br. 9; Reply
Br. 2–3.
Appellant argues that the generated hash values for the one or more 32
KB source file data records are stored with other hash values in hash record
110 and that Desai equates hash records 100 and 110 to be equivalent in
paragraph [0030] although hash records 100 are associated with a full 2 MB
block and hash records 110 are associated with the last backup data block 78
or X byte block that will be less than 2 MB. Reply Br. 3. Specifically,
Appellant argues that although the Examiner alleges that the 2 MB block or
the X byte block is equivalent to the presently claimed the segmented piece
of data, the Examiner has not provided any evidence that there is a single
hash value for the 2 MB block or the X byte block. Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner specifically explains in the rejection that the Examiner
is not relying upon the teachings of the 32 KB, but the 2 MB blocks of data
with the accumulated hash as the claimed “segmented pieces of data.” See
Final Act. 3 (“a ‘segmented data piece’ is equivalent to a 2MB block while
‘transfer data’ is equivalent to a source file; hashes are created for each
block)”); see also Ans. 3–4.
Appeal 2019-001562
Application 14/361,982
5
Appellant argues that the “claims clearly require that, for each
segmented data piece in the segmented data pieces as it is received by the
second processor in the second information device: the segmented data piece
stored in the second buffer is read and then a hash value is generated for the
segmented data piece.” Reply Br. 4.
Appellant further contends that Desai clearly points to the fact that the
32 KB source file data records are the segmented data pieces because the
hash values generated by Desai are for the 32 KB source file data records
and not the entire 2 MB block. Reply Br. 4.
We disagree with Appellant’s argument and find that the accumulated
hash is a generated hash at the completion of the 2 MB block as the
Examiner proffers. Appellant’s claim 1 does not set forth any temporal
limitation or limitation that hashes cannot be partially calculated or
accumulated.
Appellant’s mere disagreement with the Examiner’s broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim language is not persuasive.2 Appellant
does not identify any claimed step in the method of detecting data loss as
recited in the language of independent claim 1 to distinguish the claimed
invention. Although independent claim 1 recites “segmented data pieces”,
we find the claimed invention is at the receiver, and claim 1 does not set
forth any of the specific parameters of the “segmented data pieces” that were

2 Claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation,
as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking into account
whatever enlightenment may be had from the Specification. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “In the patentability context, claims
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations . . . limitations are
not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988
F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
Appeal 2019-001562
Application 14/361,982
6
generated and transmitted. Nor does the claim set forth specific limitations
as to the generation of the hash to distinguish the claimed invention from the
prior art based on the Examiner’s claim interpretation and application of
prior art teachings of the Desai reference in combination with the Yuasa
reference.
Appellant further contends that the Examiner’s interpretation of the
Desai reference carries forward to the Yuasa reference where the present
invention compares each segmented data piece in the segmented data pieces
as it is received by the second processor in the second information device to
determine whether data has been lost and, if so, cancels subsequent
segmented data pieces of the transfer data from being transferred in response
to determining that data has been lost. Reply Br. 5. Appellant contends that
the Desai reference describes transferring all the data and the accumulated
write hash values before generating any read hash values, accumulating the
read hash values and comparing those accumulated read hash values to the
accumulated write hash values in the Desai reference. Reply Br. 6.
Appellant also generally contends that the Desai reference teaches
transferring all of the data, and the Yuasa reference teaches comparison
hashes for an entire music CD. Reply Br. 6.
We disagree with Appellant’s proffered distinction because every
block of data can be segmented and not completely received until the last
portion is received, stored, and processed. We find the claimed invention
does not define the size of the blocks of data, the specific calculation of the
hash or the storage of the hash or its comparison. As a result, Appellant’s
generalized argument does not show error in the Examiner’s claim
interpretation or the application of the prior art to the claimed invention. We
further note that the language of independent claim 1 does not recite “single
Appeal 2019-001562
Application 14/361,982
7
hash value,” and Appellant has not identified how the accumulated 32 KB
blocks of data and their accumulated hash does not teach or suggest the
claimed invention.
Arguments must be commensurate in scope with the actual claim
language. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982); see In re Hiniker
Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts . . . are not
commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.”).
“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference . . . .” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Instead, the
relevant issue is “what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Combining the
teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific
structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973); see also In re
Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a
determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references
does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”).
As a result, Appellant’s arguments do not show error in the
Examiner’s claim interpretation, findings of fact, or conclusion of
obviousness of representative independent claim 1 and independent claims
16 and 23 (and their respective dependent claims) not separately argued.
Dependent claims 8, 19, and 26
With respect to dependent claims 6, 8, 13–15, 17, 19–22, 24, and 26–
28, Appellant does not separately argue patentability except for exemplary
claims 8, 19, and 26. Appeal Br. 17.
Appellant recites the language of dependent claim 8 and repeats the
arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1 concerning the
Appeal 2019-001562
Application 14/361,982
8
2 MB block. Appellant further argues the steps of receiving and storing the
read hash and the write hash values recited in independent claim 1. Appeal
Br. 17–18. Appellant further contends that the Examiner has failed to rebut
Appellant’s arguments concerning claim 8. Reply Br. 6–7.
We find Appellant’s arguments unavailing because the Examiner
identified paragraphs 34 and 37 of the Desai reference (Final Act. 4), and
Appellant has not specifically responded to the merits of the rejection with
respect to claim 8.3 Specifically, paragraphs 34 and 37 of the Desai
reference disclose that if there is a mismatch in the hashes “the backup file is
marked at step 138 as a ‘miscompare’, and the original source data file will
be recopied to the backup media, for example, during a subsequent backup
process” and “a restore process, or to copy the backup data to another
archive media, or to make another copy of the backup set may be
performed.”
We agree with the Examiner that the Desai reference teaches and
suggests restoration processing to recover the data. Moreover, Appellant has
not identified how the claimed restoration processing to recover data differs
from the teachings and suggestions of the Desai reference. As a result,
Appellant has not identified error in the Examiner’s factual findings or

3 Merely reciting the language of the claim is insufficient. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”).
Merely alleging that the references fail to support an obviousness rejection is
insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error. Attorney arguments and
conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled
to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir.
1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex
parte Belinne, 2009 WL 2477843, at *3–4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009)
(informative); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Appeal 2019-001562
Application 14/361,982
9
conclusion of obviousness with respect to representative dependent claim 8
and dependent claims 19 and 26 not separately argued.

Dependent claims 7, 18, and 25
Appellant relies upon the arguments advanced with respect to
independent claims 1, 16, and 23 and contends that the Reddy reference does
not remedy the deficiency in the Desai and Yuasa references. Appeal Br.
18–19. Appellant does not separately argue patentability of claim 7 in the
Reply Brief. Because we find no deficiency in the obviousness rejection of
representative independent claim 1, we find Appellant’s general argument to
also be unpersuasive with respect to dependent claims 7, 18, and 25.
Consequently, Appellant has not set forth separate arguments for
patentability of dependent claims 7, 18, and 25 and they will fall with
representative independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 8, 13–
17, 19–24,
26–28
§ 103(a) Desai, Yuasa 1, 6, 8,
13–17,
19–24,
26–28

7, 18, 25 § 103(a) Desai, Yuasa, Reddy 7, 18, 25
Overall
Outcome
1, 6–8,
13–28

Appeal 2019-001562
Application 14/361,982
10
FINALITY AND 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED