International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2022

2021000596 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2022)

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. 15/398,057 01/04/2017 Adam M. Gray CS01862 4585 89322 7590 03/18/2022 Garlick & Markison (PST) 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000 Austin, TX 78701 EXAMINER MESA, JOEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2447 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2022 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 ADAM M. GRAY Appeal 2021-000596 Application 15/398,057 Technology Center 2400 Before JUSTIN BUSCH, BETH Z. SHAW, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, 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 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20. 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). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Pure Storage, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-000596 Application 15/398,057 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to coordinating cached memory updates in a dispersed storage network. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations italicized: 1. A method for execution by a dispersed storage and task (DST) processing unit that includes a processor, the method comprises: executing a modification of a first locally cached item; generating a first cache broadcast for transmission via a network to a plurality of additional DST processing units in response to executing the modification; receiving a second cache broadcast via the network from one of the plurality of additional DST processing units, wherein the second cache broadcast includes a non-local revision level associated with a second locally cached item; generating revision data by comparing a first local revision level of the second locally cached item to the non-local revision level; and executing an update of the second locally cached item when the revision data indicates that the second locally cached item is outdated. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Volvovski US 2012/0166757 A1 June 28, 2012 Jung US 2016/0072888 A1 Mar. 10, 2016 Appeal 2021-000596 Application 15/398,057 3 REJECTION Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Volvovski and Jung. Non-Final Act. 3. OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. On this record, we find Appellant has not identified an error in the Examiner’s reliance on Volvovski and Jung for teaching or suggesting the elements recited in the claims. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Non-Final Rejection and Answer. See Non-Final Act. 4-9; Ans. 3-10. Claim 1 Appellant argues that Volvovski does not teach, “generating revision data by comparing a first local revision level of the second locally cached item to the non-local revision level,” as recited in claim 1. In particular, Appellant argues that the “claim 1 recitation of generating revision data indicating that the second locally cached item is outdated by comparing a first local revision level of the second locally cached item to a non-local revision level, received from an additional DST processing unit, and associated with the second locally cached item, is distinct from these cited, timing-based ways that Volvovski[] determines whether to synchronize, and is distinct from Volvovski’s disclosure of transmitting revision information to DS units.” Appeal Br. 8-9 (emphasis omitted). We find this argument unavailing because we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Volvovski teaches comparing a first local revision level of the second locally cached Appeal 2021-000596 Application 15/398,057 4 item to the non-local revision level. Ans. 3-4. Specifically, Volvovski teaches, in paragraph 121: [T]he processing module determines whether the directory metadata compares favorably to the directory information. The determination may be based on one or more of comparing received directory information (e.g., received directory information produced from decoded received directory slices) to the directory metadata and a checked read response message that indicates a revision associated with the directory information is substantially the same as a revision associated with the directory metadata. For example, the processing module determines that the directory metadata compares favorably to the directory information when the received directory information from the DSN memory is substantially the same as the directory metadata. As another example, the processing module determines that the directory metadata compares favorably to the directory information when the checked read response message indicates that revision 430 is associated with the directory information and revision 430 is also associated with the directory metadata. Volvovski ¶ 121; see also id. ¶ 105. Appellant provides insufficient evidence (see Reply Br. 3-7) to persuade us that the Specification or claims limit the claimed “generating revision data” in a way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Volvovski’s teachings of comparing directory information, such as produced from decoded received directory slices, to the directory metadata. Appellant also argues Jung does not teach “receiving a second cache broadcast via the network from one of the plurality of additional DST processing units, wherein the second cache broadcast includes a non-local revision level associated with a second locally cached item,” as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 9. Appellant argues Jung fails to disclose that the updates include any “revision level.” Id. Appellant also argues Jung fails to disclose Appeal 2021-000596 Application 15/398,057 5 receiving a non-local revision level in the cache broadcast that is associated with a second locally cached item. Id. Appellant argues Jung merely discloses that controllers can receive directory rename changes in “an attempt to reduce potential inconsistency” and that these controllers may be “browsing through the same target directory hierarchy and thus may eventually try to access file paths or modify filenames that [may] no longer be valid once the directory has been renamed.” Id. Appellant argues Jung fails to disclose that these received “non-local” updates are associated with an item that is locally cached. Id. We are not persuaded by these arguments. Jung teaches: [A] set of caching storage devices (referred to as “cloud controllers”) collectively cache, manage, and ensure data consistency for a set of data that is stored in a network storage system (e.g., a cloud-based storage system, which is also referred to as a cloud storage system). More specifically, one or more cloud controllers work together (e.g., as a federation) to manage a distributed filesystem with a global address space. Each cloud controller maintains (e.g., stores and updates) metadata that describes the file and directory layout of the distributed filesystem and the location of the data blocks in the cloud storage system. Each cloud controller can also cache a subset of the data that is stored in the cloud storage system. A cloud controller that writes (or modifies) data ensures that: (1) data changes are reflected in the cloud storage system; and (2) other cloud controllers in the system are informed of file and metadata changes. Jung ¶ 48. Jung, therefore, at least suggests receiving a cache broadcast via the network from one of the plurality of additional DST processing units, where the second cache broadcast includes a non-local revision level associated with a second locally cached item, because Jung teaches that data changes Appeal 2021-000596 Application 15/398,057 6 are reflected in the cloud storage system and that other cloud controllers in the system are informed of file and metadata changes. See id. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art, reading Jung, would understand that a revision from a DST other than itself is a non-local revision. See Ans. 5; Jung ¶¶ 48, 102, 106. Accordingly, for these reasons and for the reasons stated in the Non- Final Rejection and Answer, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Dependent Claim 8 We find unavailing Appellant’s argument that the Examiner fails to show how Volvovski teaches or suggests the elements of dependent claim 8, which recites, in part, “receiving a plurality of second cache broadcasts from the plurality of additional DST processing units, wherein generating the revision data includes comparing the first local revision level to a plurality of non-local revision levels included in the received plurality of second cache broadcasts.” Appeal Br. 8. As explained in the Non-Final Office Action, Volvovski teaches synchronizing with all other DS units. See Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Volvovski ¶ 106, Fig. 6); see also In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) (noting that merely duplicating parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced). “Broadcasting directory rename operations to all cloud controllers can facilitate resolving such issues.” Volvovski ¶ 106. Additionally, Appellant has not shown that performing the receiving a plurality of second cache broadcasts and comparing the first local revision level to a plurality of non-local revision levels included in the received plurality of second cache broadcasts would have been uniquely challenging Appeal 2021-000596 Application 15/398,057 7 or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161-62 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, for these reasons and for the reasons stated in the Non- Final Rejection and Answer, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 8. Dependent Claim 5 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments that Volvovski and Jung fail to teach or suggest the elements of dependent claim 5, which recites “wherein the revision data is generated in response to at least one of: receiving an access request or interpreting an access prediction to indicate that access is likely.” Appeal Br. 13-15; Reply Br. 11. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, Volvovski teaches receiving an access request (¶ 102) and sending data to be stored, as well as that the write or store operation is initiated by the requestor. Volvovski ¶ 105. Thus, Volvovski teaches, or at least suggests, “wherein the revision data is generated in response to . . . receiving an access request,” as recited in dependent claim 5. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 5. Dependent Claim 9 Appellant argues that Volvovski fails to show determining a time frame to perform an update as recited in claim 9, and performing the update in the determined time frame. Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 12. Appellant argues that “the claim 9 recitation of executing the update by determining a time frame to perform the update is distinct from Volvovski’s determining of whether to synchronize based [on] detecting a time interval since a last update” and “performing the update in the determined time frame is distinct Appeal 2021-000596 Application 15/398,057 8 from Volvovski’s determining of whether to synchronize based [on] detecting a time interval since a last update.” Reply Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Volvovski for teaching or at least suggesting the elements of dependent claim 9. Volvovski teaches that “the processing module determines whether to synchronize the directory metadata with directory information stored in the DSN memory.” Volvovski ¶ 104. “The determination may be based on one or more of detecting a time interval since a last update is greater than a time threshold, an indicator to always synchronize after a store operation, a data type indicator, a frequency of change indicator, a system activity indicator, a timestamp of previous synchronizations, message, and a command.” Id. “For example, the processing module determines to synchronize when the time interval since the last update is 60 seconds and the time threshold is 50 seconds.” Id. Although Volvovski does not state explicitly that its update is performed “in the determined time frame,” Volvovski at least suggests as much, or that such an update “in” the time frame would have been at least an obvious variation, particularly given the discussion of synchronizing based on detecting a time interval, a frequency of change, a timestamp, and a time threshold. See id. Nor has Appellant shown that performing the recited update “in” the time frame would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See Leapfrog Enters., 485 F.3d at 1161-62. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 9. Appeal 2021-000596 Application 15/398,057 9 Dependent Claim 10 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 reciting, in pertinent part, generating a request for a current version of the second locally cached item, and receiving the current version of the second locally cached item. The Examiner finds that Volvovski’s paragraphs 15 and 107 teach requesting data in a DSN. Ans. 8-9. Appellant does not persuasively rebut these findings. Appellant provides insufficient evidence to persuade us that the Specification or claims limit the claimed “current version” in a way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Volvovski’s teachings. On this record, Volvovski at least suggests the recited generating a request for a current version and receiving the current version of the second locally cached item. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10. CONCLUSION We affirm the rejection. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 103 Volvovski, Jung 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 Appeal 2021-000596 Application 15/398,057 10 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED