MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2022

2021000998 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 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. 15/377,742 12/13/2016 Bradley Gene Calder 217532USCON/331868- US-CNT 4709 181403 7590 03/28/2022 Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP-Microsoft PO Box 29001 Glendale, CA 91209-9001 EXAMINER FILIPCZYK, MARCIN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2153 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2022 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): PLPrivatePair@lrrc.com pto@lewisroca.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BRADLEY GENE CALDER, NIRANJAN NILAKANTAN, SHASHWAT SRIVASTAV, JIESHENG WU, ABDUL RAFAY ABBASI, SHANE MAINALI, and PADMANABHA CHAKRAVARTHY UDDARAJU ___________ Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20, all of the pending claims. Final Act. 2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 1. 2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed May 14, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed November 24, 2020); the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed November 27, 2019) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 24, 2020); and the Specification (“Spec.,” filed December 13, 2016). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents. Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claimed methods and systems “relate to systems, methods, and computer storage media for synchronously replicating data in a distributed computing environment.” Spec. ¶ 2. To achieve synchronous replication both an eventual consistency approach with strong consistency on failover and a strong consistency approach are contemplated. Data is received at a primary data store from a client. The data may then be written to a log of the primary data store for eventual committal. The data is then annotated with a record, such as a unique identifier, which facilitates the replay of the data at a secondary data store. The annotated data is communicated from the primary data store to the secondary data store to be written to a log of the secondary data store. Upon receiving an acknowledgment that the secondary data store has written the data to a log, the primary data store may commit the data and communicate an acknowledgment of success back to the client. In a strong consistency approach, the primary data store may wait to send an acknowledgement of success to the client until it has received an acknowledgment that the secondary has not only written, but also committed, the data. Id. ¶ 19 (emphasis added); see id. ¶¶ 42-43 (describing examples of data committal).3 As noted above, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 13 are independent. Appeal Br. 16 (claim 1), 17-18 (claim 8), 19-20 (claim 13) (Claims App.). Claims 2-7 depend directly from claim 1, claims 9-12 3 “In a general sense, a commit is the updating of a record in a database. In the context of a database transaction, a commit refers to the saving of data permanently after a set of tentative changes. A commit ends a transaction within a relational database and allows all other users to see the changes.” https://www.techopedia.com/definition/16/commit (Definition of “commit”; Last updated: August 29, 2011). Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 3 depend directly from claim 8, and claims 14-20 depend directly from claim 13. Id. at 16-21. Claims 1 and 8, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, are representative. 1. A computer-implemented method for performing synchronous replication in a distributed storage environment, the method comprising: accessing, at a primary data store, a data portion from a client, wherein the primary data store and a secondary data store, wherein the primary data store and the secondary data store4 are configured for strong consistency synchronous replication; transmitting the data portion to the secondary data store; committing the data portion at the primary data store; transmitting instructions to cause committal of the data portion at the secondary data store; based on committing the data portion at the primary data store and causing committal of the data portion at the secondary data store, transmitting an acknowledgement of committing the data portion, wherein reads from the first primary data store and the secondary data store are blocked until after the data portion is committed at both the primary data store and the secondary data store. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.) (emphases added). 8. A computer-implemented method for synchronous replication in a distributed storage environment, the method comprising: 4 Claim 1 recites, “wherein the primary data store and a secondary data store, wherein the primary data store and the secondary data store.” The phrase “wherein the primary data store and the secondary data store” appears to be a typographical error. We understand claim 1 was intended to recite, “wherein the primary data store and a secondary data store are configured for strong consistency synchronous replication.” If prosecution resumes, Appellant should consider amending claim 1 to correct this error. Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 4 accessing, at a primary data store, a data portion from a client, wherein the primary data store and the secondary data store5 are configured for eventual consistency synchronous replication; transmitting the data portion to the secondary data store to cause recording of the data portion to a log at the secondary data store, without committing the data portion at the secondary data store; based on causing the recording the data portion at the log, committing the data portion at the primary data store; transmitting an acknowledgement of committing the data portion; and based on the data portion being recorded at the log, committing the data portion at the secondary data store. Id. at 17-18 (emphases added). Claim 1 recites methods for strong consistency synchronous replication, and claim 8 recites methods for eventual consistency synchronous replication. Independent claim 13 recites systems that may comprise “a first primary data store and a first secondary data store, wherein the first primary data store and the first secondary data store are configured for strong consistency synchronous replication” or “a second primary data store and a second secondary data store, wherein the second primary data store and the second secondary data store are configured for eventual consistency synchronous replication.” Id. at 19-20 (emphases added). Consequently, we understand the systems of claim 13 may perform strong consistency or eventual consistency synchronous replication, but not both. 5 Although the Examiner does not reject claim 8 as indefinite, claim 8 lacks antecedent basis for “the secondary data store.” If prosecution resumes, Appellant should consider amending claim 8 to address this deficiency. Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 5 Cf. Spec. ¶ 19 (Claim 13 does not recite failover to a strong consistency from an eventual consistency approach.). REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following references: Name6 Reference Issued Filed Tawri US 7,885,923 B1 Feb. 8, 2011 June 13, 2007 Prahlad US 8,407,190 B2 Mar. 26, 2013 Mar. 31, 2010 Calder US 9,519,555 B2 Dec. 13, 2016 May 23, 2011 The Examiner rejects: (1) claims 1-20 under non-statutory double patenting in view of claims 1-20 of Calder (Final Act. 2-3; see Ans. 3), and (2) claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Prahlad and Tawri (Final Act. 4-13). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and contentions, respectively, on claims 1, 8, 13, 15, and 20; so we do as well. See Appeal Br. 4, 6, 8, 11, 13; Ans. 6, 7, 8, 9. Arguments not made are forfeited.7 Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in 6 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. 7 See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Because Google failed to present these claim construction arguments to the Board, Google forfeited both arguments.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013) (“Except as provided for in §§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”). Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 6 the Final Office Action and the Answer as our own and add any additional findings of fact for emphasis. We address the rejections below. ANALYSIS A. Non-Statutory Double Patenting As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting in view of claims 1-20 of Calder. Final Act. 2-3. Appellant does not challenge this rejection. See Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 1. “An appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by the applicant and entered by the Office.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) (2011); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013) (“The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant.”). “If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waived8 any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner’s answer.” MPEP § 1205.02 (9th ed., Rev. 10.2019, Last Rev’d June 2020); see Ans. 3 (“Every ground of rejection set forth in the Office action dated 11/27/19 from which the appeal is taken is being maintained by the examiner”). Therefore, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s non-statutory double patenting rejection. B. Obviousness over Prahlad and Tawri 1. Independent Claim 1 As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 1, 8, and 13 as obvious 8 See supra note 7. Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 7 over the combined teachings of Prahlad and Tawri. Final Act. 4-11. In particular, with respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Prahlad teaches or suggests the majority of the claim’s limitations. Id. at 4-5 (citing Prahlad, 11:1-15, 15:63-16:27, 19:44-20:60, 24:39-67, 55:8-24, Figs. 2, 3b, 11, 15, 16, 21, 23). The Examiner finds, however, “Prahlad does not explicitly teach ‘wherein reads from the first primary data store and the secondary data store are blocked until after the data portion is committed at both the primary data store and the secondary data store’.” Id. at 5. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds Tawri teaches or suggests the limitation missing from Prahlad. Final Act. 5 (citing Tawri, 29:7-18). In particular, the Examiner finds, “Tawri teaches a replication system wherein replication commands are configured to delay execution of the request until all writes for the relevant consistency interval have been received/read from the log and stored.” Id. (emphasis added).9 Specifically, Tawri recites, “[i]n other words, the replication target that executes an in-band command may be configured to delay execution of the action requested by the in-band command until after all writes for the relevant consistency interval have been received (or read from log) and stored.” Tawri, 29:14-18. Further, the Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Prahlad with those of Tawri “for safer data processing in a multi cloud storage and processing architecture 1540” 9 The Examiner cites to “par. 29, lines 7-18, Tawri.” Final Act. 5, 14 (emphasis added). Appellant asserts that the Examiner cites to Tawri, col. 7, ll. 7-18. Appeal Br. 7. However, that portion of Tawri does not mention “delay[ing] execution.” Instead, we understand the Examiner intends to cite to Tawri, col. 29, ll. 7-18, which discusses “delay[ed] execution.” We find this clerical error to constitute harmless error. Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 8 and, thereby, to achieve the methods of claim 1. Final Act. 6 (citing Prahlad, 24:39-67, Figs. 16, 21). Appellant contends the Examiner errs because Merely delaying the execution of requests by suspending write actions at nodes (e.g., computers or applications) is not the same as blocking reads at a primary data store and a secondary data store prior to transmitting an acknowledgment of committing the data portion at the primary and secondary data stores, as recited in independent claim 1. Tawri, at best, discusses suspending write actions from nodes in a clustered environment (e.g., by determining write conflicts among multiple nodes attempting to write to the same block(s) of storage data in a data store) in intervals to achieve a consistent copy of storage data in a data store. See Tawri at col. 11, lines 1-55. However, suspending write actions of nodes attempting to write data at a data store, as discussed in Tawri, is significantly different than [blocking reads from the first primary data store and the secondary data store are blocked prior to transmitting the acknowledgement of committing the data portion]. Appeal Br. 8 (underlining added); see Reply Br. 4. As Appellant notes, Tawri discloses: Thus, if source nodes are allowed to continu[e] writing data during consistency interval transitions, one of the nodes may overwrite a conflict block, thus preventing interval coordinator 120 and/or replication target 140 from resolving that conflict by obtaining the latest version of data for that block from primary storage 130. Tawri, 11:10-15; see Appeal Br. 8. Further, Tawri explains, “[i]n other words, the replication target that executes an in-band command may be configured to delay execution of the action requested by the in-band command until after all writes for the relevant consistency interval have been received (or read from log) and stored.” Tawri, 29:14-18 (emphases added). Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 9 Specifically, Appellant contends, pausing data writes to prevent overwriting the wrong version of data in a data store is not the same as a transmitting an acknowledgement of committing the data portion, wherein reads from the first primary data store and the secondary data store are blocked prior to transmitting the acknowledgement, based on committing the data portion at the primary data store and the secondary data store, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. Thus, Appellant contends that delaying write actions does not teach or suggest blocking reads, and Tawri, alone or in combination with Prahlad, does not teach or suggest the missing limitation of claim 1. See Reply Br. 4 (“delaying writes in a single log file to prevent write conflicts is not the same as [blocking reads]”). The Examiner responds: The combination of Prahlad/Tawri comprising a policy to delay a write request until all relevant writes have been received from a log and stored (see Final rejection, pages 5-6) ensure[s] that data is correctly copied and migrated in the migration process prior to issuing reads. For example, Tawri teaches that data read from the primary storage may not be valid if any node involved in the migration has not consistently overwritten the relevant data block and thus would create a write conflict (col. 15, lines 40-49, “the data read from the primary storage 130 may not be valid if any node has overwritten the relevant block during a later consistency in[t]erval”, Tawri). Prahlad/Tawri combination teaching of “policy delay” of write requests avoiding “write conflicts” prevents reads from primary and any other storage until data is consistently stored across the storages and committed. Ans. 6 (emphases added). Thus, the Examiner finds that delaying write actions necessarily blocks reads. We disagree with the Examiner. Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 10 Tawri teaches delaying writes to achieve consistency in stored data (Tawri, 2:10-12, 7:10-14) and to avoid overwrites (id. at 11:10-15) may avoid invalid reads (id. at 15:40-43). However, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner fails to show that Tawri’s delaying writes teaches or suggests blocking reads. Similar results may be obtained, but by clearly different steps. On this record, we are persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of Prahlad and Tawri, and we do not sustain that rejection of claim 1. Further, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2-7, each of which depends directly from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 5. 2. Independent Claim 8 With respect to claim 8, the Examiner finds Prahlad teaches or suggests the majority of the claim’s limitations. Final Act. 6-7, 7-8 (citing Prahlad, 11:1-15, 15:63-16:27, 19:44-20:60, 24:39-67, 55:8-24, Figs. 2, 3b, 11, 15, 16, 21, 23). The Examiner finds, however, “Prahlad does not explicitly teach without committing the data portion at the secondary data store.” Id. at 7. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds Tawri teaches or suggests the limitation missing from Prahlad. Final Act. 7 (citing Tawri, 29:7-18); see supra note 9. In particular, the Examiner finds, “Tawri teaches a replication system wherein replication commands are configured to delay execution of the request until all writes for the relevant consistency interval have been received/read from the log and stored.” Id. (emphasis added). Specifically, Tawri recites, “[i]n other words, the replication target that executes an in- band command may be configured to delay execution of the action requested Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 11 by the in-band command until after all writes for the relevant consistency interval have been received (or read from log) and stored.” Tawri, 29:14- 18 (emphasis added). Further, the Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Prahlad with those of Tawri “for safer data processing in a multi cloud storage and processing architecture 1540” and, thereby, to achieve the methods of claim 8. Final Act. 7 (citing Prahlad, 24:39-67, Figs. 16, 21). Appellant contends the Examiner errs because Tawri, addresses the problem of nodes (e.g., computers or applications) attempting to write to the same block of data in a data store (e.g., secondary data store) at the same time by suspending write actions at the nodes such that data is replicated to the data store in a consistent manner. See Tawri at col. 2, lines 10-36. However, Tawri operates to suspend write actions at a secondary store to allow all in-progress writes from a primary store to complete avoiding any inconsistencies between out of order write actions from independent streams of writes from nodes. Appeal Br. 10-11. As Appellant notes, Tawri discloses: One goal of replication is to achieve a consistent copy of data being generated by independent streams of writes from nodes in a clustered/distributed environment. . . . In order to obtain points in time where the replicated data is consistent, consistency interval markers may be used. Consistency interval markers may ensure that when all data writes from source nodes are completed before a consistency interval snapshot or checkpoint is generated, and thus may ensure that the data in the checkpoint is consistent. Consistency interval marker based replication may involve an interval coordinator managing the starting and stopping of individual consistency intervals and thus the timing of consistency checkpoints or snapshots. Tawri, 2:10-13, 26-36 (emphases added); see Appeal Br. 11. Further, Tawri explains, “[s]uspending write completions may allow all in-progress Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 12 writes from source nodes to complete and thus may allow the data to be consistent when the replication target checkpoints or saves a snapshot for the consistency interval.” Tawri, 7:10-14; see Appeal Br. 10. Specifically, Appellant contends, “pausing data writes to prevent overwriting the wrong version of data is not the same as a recording the data portion to a log at the secondary data store, without committing the data portion at the secondary data store, as recited in claim 8.” Appeal Br. 11; see Reply Br. 4. Thus, Appellant contends that delaying write actions does not teach or suggest delaying committing of the data portion, and, because Tawri only discloses delaying write actions, rather than delaying committing, Tawri does not teach or suggest the missing limitation of claim 8. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds: Tawri system/method comprising a command is configured to delay execution of the action such as a read request after all writes for the relevant consistency interval have been received/read from log and stored. This configuration in Prahlad storage policies teaches a plurality of actions are performed prior to enabling a request . . ..10 Final Act. 14-15. The Examiner further finds: Prahlad/Tawri combination further teach[es], the block or snapshot being monitored prior to the block being overwritten in the primary storage (col. 2, lines 33-38, “block is copied to secondary storage before the block is overwritten in the primary storage” and col. 9, lines 29-43, “migration”, Prahlad). Hence, the handling of the block/snapshot prior to copying reads on the claimed limitation. Appellant’s comments regarding Tawri’s teaching of pausing of data writes and the like do not teach away 10 Although the Examiner finds that such a request may be a “read’ request, for the reasons given above, we are not persuaded that finding is correct. See supra Section B.1. Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 13 from the claimed limitation, instead show additional features taught by Prahlad/Tawri combination. Ans. 8 (emphases added). Thus, the Examiner finds that in combination, Prahlad and Tawri teach or suggest, “transmitting the data portion to the secondary data store to cause recording of the data portion to a log at the secondary data store, without committing the data portion at the secondary data store” and “committing” the data portion at the secondary data store after or simultaneous with “committing” the data portion at the primary data store. See Final Act. 7-8. Therefore, the disputed limitation recites only a delay in the eventual committal of the data portion. Consequently, we agree with the Examiner. On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 8 as obvious over the combined teachings of Prahlad and Tawri, and we sustain the rejection of claim 8. Further, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 9-12, each of which depends directly from claim 8, but are not challenged separately with particularity. See Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 5. 3. Independent Claim 13 As noted above, independent claim 13 recites systems that comprise either “a first primary data store and a first secondary data store, wherein the first primary data store and the first secondary data store are configured for strong consistency synchronous replication” or “a second primary data store and a second secondary data store, wherein the second primary data store and the second secondary data store are configured for eventual consistency synchronous replication.” Appeal Br. 19-20 (Claims App.) (emphases Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 14 added). Claim 13 recites these as alternatives and the strong and eventual consistency synchronous replication configurations are described by the steps of method claims 1 and 8, respectively. In the preceding analysis, we determine the Examiner errs in rejecting the strong consistency synchronous replication configuration, as recited in claim 1, but the Examiner does not err in rejecting the eventual consistency synchronous replication configuration, as recited in claim 8. See supra Sections B.1. and B.2. Appellant challenges the rejection of the recited alternatives in claim 13 for the same reasons it challenges the rejection of claims 1 and 8, respectively. Appeal Br. 9, 12; see Reply Br. 5. If a claim is obvious sometimes, that claim is unpatentable. For the same reasons set forth above with respect to the obviousness rejection of claim 8, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting the eventual consistency synchronous replication alternative of claim 13 as obvious over the combined teachings of Prahlad and Tawri, and we sustain that rejection of claim 13. Further, we sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 16-19, which depend directly from claim 13, but are not challenged separately with particularity. See Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 5. 4. Dependent Claim 15 Dependent claim 15 recites, in the systems of claim 13, “transmitting the first data portion to the first secondary data store causes blocking of reads and writes of a first secondary data store object representing the first data portion.” Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.) (emphases added). This claim adds an additional limitation to the systems comprising “the first primary data store and the first secondary data store [] configured for strong Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 15 consistency synchronous replication,” i.e., the first alternative systems, as recited in claim 13. Id. at 19 (emphases added). The Examiner finds the same disclosure of Tawri teaches or suggests “blocking of reads and writes,” as recited in claim 15, that the Examiner finds teaches or suggests blocking “reads,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5, 11; see Ans. 9. For the same reasons set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 1, on this record, we are persuaded the Examiner errs in finding Tawri teaches or suggests this limitation. Nevertheless, dependent claim 15 incorporates all of the limitations of claim 13, including those directed to the system comprising “the second primary data store and the second secondary data store [] configured for eventual consistency synchronous replication,” i.e., the second alternative systems. Id. at 19-20 (emphasis added). These second alternative systems, however, are not altered by the additional limitation recited in claim 15. See supra Section B.3 (determining claim 13 is not patentable because of the recitation of the second alternative systems). Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting dependent claim 15 as obvious over the combined teachings of Prahlad and Tawri, and we sustain the rejection of claim 15. 5. Dependent Claim 20 Dependent claim 20 recites, in the systems of claim 13, committing the second data portion at the second primary data store comprises writing the second data portion to one or more logs at the second primary data store, wherein a second primary data store object representing the second data portion is not accessible until after committing the second data portion at the second primary data store. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). This claim adds an Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 16 additional limitation to the systems comprising “the second primary data store and the second secondary data store are configured for eventual consistency synchronous replication,” i.e., the second alternative systems, as recited in claim 13. Id. at 19-20 (emphases added). Specifically, this claim recites that “committing” comprises “writing the second data portion to one or more logs at the second primary data store.” See Spec. ¶ 42. The Examiner finds the combined teachings of Prahlad and Tawri render this claim obvious. Final Act. 13 (citing Prahlad, 24:39-67, Figs. 16, 21; Tawri, 29:7-8). Appellant notes that the Examiner finds the same disclosures of Prahlad and Tawri teach or suggest the very different limitations of claim 15. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant contends: As shown, the Office appears to have equated the language in dependent claim 15 with that of dependent claim 20 because the Office cites that the same exact portion of the reference from claim 15 using the exact same language in the rejection. However, both claims are directed toward distinct features and contain completely different claim language. As a result, Appellant is unable to understand how the same exact portion could be cited for two distinct claims. Id. (emphasis added); see Ans. 9. The Examiner explains the rejection of claim 20 in the Answer and identifies additional evidence supporting the rejection. In particular, the Examiner responds, “[t]he claim limitation [of base claim 13] requires recording the second data portion to a log at the secondary data store, without committing the second data portion at the secondary data store.” Ans. 10. Consequently, the Examiner finds: For instance, Prahlad/Tawri combination teach a storage manager 105 and a plurality of agents and subagents i.e., agents 220, 233 and 235 communicate and monitor the status of storage operations currently performed, or scheduled to be performed Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 17 thus interact with data prior to storing it (col. 14, lines 4-30, Prahlad). The respective agents provide an interface to view the status of pending storage operations (col. 14, lines 4-30 “interface”, “pending storage operations”, Prahlad). In addition, the agent 235 logs requests and responses, receive requests and provide responses (col. 19, lines 44-65, Prahlad). Providing “status of storage operations” in combination with “logs requests and responses”, at least include recording the first, second, or any data portion temporarily, while monitoring, in a data migration environment. Id. (emphases added). Appellant does not reply to the Examiner’s response, nor does Appellant address Prahlad’s disclosures newly cited in the Answer. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013) (quoted above); but see Reply Br. 5. On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting dependent claim 20 as obvious over the combined teachings of Prahlad and Tawri, and we sustain that rejection of claim 20. DECISION 1. The Examiner does not err in rejecting: a. claims 1-20 under non-statutory double patenting in view of claims 1-20 of Calder; and b. claims 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Prahlad and Tawri. 2. The Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Prahlad and Tawri 3. Thus, on this record, claims 1-20 are not patentable. CONCLUSION Because we affirm at least one rejection of each pending claim, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20. Appeal 2021-000998 Application 15/377,742 18 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 Non-statutory Double Patenting, Calder 1-20 1-20 103 Prahlad, Tawri 8-20 1-7 Overall Outcome 1-20 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) (2013). AFFIRMED