Kaushik, Akhil et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 11, 2020

11207606 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 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.
11/207,606 08/18/2005 Akhil Kaushik LEGAP057 6664
57255 7590 09/11/2020
VAN PELT, YI & JAMES LLP AND
EMC IP Holding Company LLC
10050 N. FOOTHILL BLVD.
SUITE 200
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
EXAMINER
GMAHL, NAVNEET K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2020 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):
usptocorrespondence@ip-patent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AKHIL KAUSHIK, SUBRAMANIAN PERIYAGARAM,
JIAN XING, and RANGARAJAN SURYANARAYANAN

Appeal 2019-003110
Application 11/207,606
Technology Center 2100

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20, 23–37, and 40, all of the claims

1 We refer to the Specification filed Aug. 18, 2005 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed Mar. 26, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
Oct. 24, 2018 (“Appeal Br”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Jan. 11, 2019
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed March 11, 2019 (Reply Br.”). This
appeal relates to Appeal 2011-000911, decided on September 26, 2013, in
which a PTAB panel affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 and
24–37, and reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21–23 and 38–40.
Dec. 8.
Appeal 2019-003110
Application 11/207,606

2
pending.2 Appeal Br. 2. Claims 21, 22, 38, and 39 are canceled. Claims
App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
method and system for indexing backup data to generate identifiers for files
associated with the backup data thereby facilitating the efficient search
thereof to restore destination data. Spec. ¶ 11.
Figure 2, reproduced and discussed below, is useful for
understanding the claimed subject matter:

2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies EMC IP Holding Company LLC
as the real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003110
Application 11/207,606

3
Figure 2 above depicts a flow diagram illustrating a search-enabled backup
restoration environments. Id. ¶ 4.
In particular, upon receiving backup data (202) processed at content
generator (204), server/indexer and search engine (112/206) indexes the
received backup data, which it stores along with associated identifiers in
index store (114, 208). Id. ¶¶ 11, 16. Upon receiving a search query from
host/client (104), server/indexer and search engine (112/206) searches index
store (208) and returns search results including objects along with associated
identifiers identifying the location (e.g., file path) thereof within the set of
backup data. Id. ¶¶ 16, 19, Fig. 1. Server/indexer and search engine
(112/206) then sends the location identifiers to backup server (108), which
subsequently restores the indexed data for subsequent use by client/host
(104), as well as for data recovery into recover destination (212). Id. ¶¶ 16–
19.
Claims 1, 28, and 34 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
1. A method of facilitating a search of backup data,
comprising:
receiving at an index and search server data associated
with at least a portion of the backup data;
generating, based at least in part on the received data, a
searchable index of the backup data, wherein the searchable
index includes an index data that directly indicates a specific
location within the backup data of an object comprising the
backup data and wherein the location comprises a file path
identifier that is independent of any physical or logical data
location and independent of type of backup data;
searching the searchable index in response to a received
search query associated with the object to determine the
location of the object in the backup data; and
Appeal 2019-003110
Application 11/207,606

4
restoring the object from the determined backup data
location to a destination to which the object is requested to be
restored.

Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Mikawa US 2002/0097645 A1 July 25, 2002
Whiting US 2002/0107877 A1 Aug. 8, 2002
Shaji US 2004/0204949 A1 Oct. 14, 2004
Williams US 2005/0166082 A1 July 28, 2005

IV. REJECTIONS4
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1–20 and 24–37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Williams, Whiting, and Mikawa.
Final Act. 14–24.
2. Claims 23 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Williams, Whiting, Mikawa, and Shaji.
Final Act. 25–26.

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 The Examiner withdraws the patent ineligibility subject matter rejection
previously entered against claims 1–20 and 23–37. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-003110
Application 11/207,606

5
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments in the order they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 8–11, and in the Reply Brief, pages 2–5.5 We are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Final Office Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 14–27; Ans. 4–10. However, we highlight and
address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Regarding the rejection of independent claims 1, 28, and 34,
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Williams, Whiting, and Mikawa teaches or suggests generating “a
searchable index of the backup data, wherein the searchable index includes
an index data that directly indicates a specific location within the backup
data of an object comprising the backup data and wherein the location
comprises a file path identifier that is independent of any physical or logical
data location and independent of type of backup data . . . ,” as recited in
independent claims 1, 28, and 34. Appeal Br. 2. In particular, Appellant
argues that Williams teaches storing data elements of a backup data stream
in an easily accessible format for subsequent review and query by
administrators. Id. at 9 (citing Williams ¶ 12), Reply Br. 2. Appellant
argues, however, that Williams’s searchable database is not employed to
determine an index data indicating the specific location of an object (i.e., file
path ID independent of physical/logical location or type of backup data).

5 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-003110
Application 11/207,606

6
Appeal Br. 9. Further, Appellant argues that although Whiting discloses
creating a backup directory file including pointers indicating the location of
the files on the source disk volume, the backup directory file does not teach
a searchable index that includes the independent file path of the data object
within the backup data. Id. at 9–10 (citing Whiting ¶¶ 38, 39, 42).
Furthermore, Appellant argues that Whiting teaches an Index Lookup file
that maps a particular file index to a corresponding backup data file name,
the data file does not teach an independent file path ID indicating a specific
location of the file. Id. at. 10 (citing ¶¶ 55, 89). Additionally, Appellant
argues that Mikawa’s disclosure of managing information on a writing
medium to allow easy recognition for copying and updating content does not
cure the noted deficiencies of Williams and Whiting. Id. Consequently,
Appellant argues that the combination of Williams, Whiting, and Mikawa
would not have reasonably taught or suggested the disputed limitations of
claims 1, 28, and 34. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner
error.
We begin our analysis by giving the phrase “file path identifier” its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s disclosure.
As explained in In re Morris:
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art,
taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[C]laims must be interpreted as broadly as
Appeal 2019-003110
Application 11/207,606

7
their terms reasonably allow.”). Our reviewing court further states, “the
‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan
after reading the entire patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Appellant’s Specification states in relevant part:
Keywords may be generated using the content and associated
with identifiers indicating the location of specific data within the
backup data. The location identifier may include a file path within the
backup data; a location of a file or other object on backup media; a
backup media path, volume or location; or any other location data
that could later be used to retrieve and restore the associated data
and/or object. In some embodiments, the location identifier may be
independent of any physical and logical data location and
independent of type of backup data. For example, the identifier may
be a unique identification number such as a uniform resource
identifier (URI). The identification number corresponding to the
associated data is valid even if the associated data is relocated to
another physical or logical location or even if the data is converted,
translated, or compressed. Processing the backup data for searching
may include any processing preparation required for any search
methodology.
Spec. ¶ 19 (emphasis added).
Although the cited textual portion of Appellant’s Specification does
not define “file path identifier” expressly, it nonetheless provides some
insights as to the meaning or use of this phrase within the context of the
claimed subject matter. As noted in the textual quotations emphasized
above, “file path identifier” pertains to a pointer that refers to the location of
data associated therewith albeit independent of the physical or logical
location thereof.
Williams discloses extracting descriptive management data from a
received data stream intended for archiving on a backup storage device, and
storing the extracted data in searchable format in a database. Williams ¶ 12.
Appeal 2019-003110
Application 11/207,606

8
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Williams particularly discloses
extracting from the data stream distinct sets of data including hyperlink data
(e.g., a URI), which points to the location of a backup file data in storage
independently of any physical or logical location, as exemplified in
Appellant’s Specification. Ans. 5 (citing Williams ¶¶ 14, 41, Spec. ¶ 19),
Final Act. 15. As further correctly noted by the Examiner, Williams
discloses an index of data types including hyperlink data pointing to
locations of backup files stored on an archive device. Ans. 5 (citing
Williams ¶ 54). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that, consistent with
Appellant’s Specification, Williams teaches an index file path identifier
indicating a specific location within the backup file, wherein the index file
path identifier is independent of physical/logical data location or any type of
backup data. Id.
Whiting cumulatively discloses indexing a backup directory of files
with associated pointers identifying the location of each of said files in a
source disk storage volume. Whiting ¶¶ 42, 53, 54. Likewise, Mikawa
cumulatively discloses a file name and a file path for identifying the location
of a file. Id. ¶ 30.
Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner’s principal finding that
Williams’s disclosure of an index file including uniform resource identifiers
(“URI”) teaches the claimed index file path identifiers indicating a specific
file path identifier independent of physical/logical data location or any type
of backup data. As noted above, this finding is consistent with Appellant’s
definition of file path as set forth in Appellant’s Specification.
Consequently, we are satisfied that, on this record, the Examiner has
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed
Appeal 2019-003110
Application 11/207,606

9
combination of Williams, Whiting, and Mikawa teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations. Ans. 6. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 28, and 34 over the combined
teachings of Williams, Whiting, and Mikawa.
Regarding the rejections of claims 2–20, 23–27, 29–33, 35–37, and 40,
Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments or has
reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
the patentability of claims 1, 28, and 34. As such, claims 2–20, 23–27, 29–
33, 35–37, and 40 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
VI. CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20, 23–37, and 40.
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20, 24–37 103(a) Williams, Whiting, Mikawa
1–20, 24–
37
23, 40 103(a) Williams, Whiting, Mikawa, Shaji 23, 40
Overall
Outcome
1–20, 23–
37, 40

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED