CLEVERSAFE, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 29, 2021

2020005607 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2021)

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.
14/292,662 05/30/2014 Andrew Baptist CS01418 4897
89322 7590 12/29/2021
Garlick & Markison (PST)
100 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000
Austin, TX 78701
EXAMINER
WILLIS, AMANDA LYNN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2021 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 ANDREW BAPTIST, WESLEY LEGGETTE,
JASON K. RESCH and MICHAEL COLIN STORM
___________

Appeal 2020-005607
Application 14/292,662
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1, 3–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 8. Claims 1, 13 and 20 are
independent. Claim 2 is cancelled. See Claims Appendix. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 29, 2020), the
Final Action (mailed July 30, 2019) and the Answer (mailed April 22, 2020),
for the respective details.
2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019).
Appellant identifies Pure Storage, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal
Brief 2.
Appeal 2020-005607
Application 14/292,662

2

Introduction
According to Appellant, the present invention “relates generally to
computer networks and more particularly to dispersed storage of data and
distributed task processing of data.” Specification 1.
Referring to Appellant’s Figure 1:
In general and with respect to DS [(dispersed storage)] error
encoded data storage and retrieval, the distributed computing
system 10 supports three primary operations: storage
management, data storage and retrieval [ ], and data storage
integrity verification. In accordance with these three primary
functions, data can be encoded, distributedly stored in physically
different locations, and subsequently retrieved in a reliable and
secure manner.
Specification 8.
Appellant indicates that the system is beneficial because:
Such a system is tolerant of a significant number of failures (e.g.,
up to a failure level, which may be greater than or equal to a pillar
width minus a decode threshold minus one) that may result from
individual storage device failures and/or network equipment
failures without loss of data and without the need for a redundant
or backup copy. Further, the system allows the data to be stored
for an indefinite period of time without data loss and does so in
a secure manner (e.g., the system is very resistant to attempts at
hacking the data).
Specification 8.
Representative Claim3 (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for execution by one or more processing modules
of one or more computing devices of a dispersed storage network
(DSN), the method comprises:

3 Appellant does not argue independent claims 1, 13 or 20 individually. See
Appeal Brief 12 (“The Applicant believes that the reasons that distinguish
Appeal 2020-005607
Application 14/292,662

3

receiving, by a computing device of the DSN, a data object
co-locate write request, the data object co-locate write request
including a first data identifier identifying a first data object and a
second data identifier identifying a second data object to be co-
located with the first data object, wherein the first data object is
segmented into a plurality of data segments, each data segment
dispersed storage error encoded into a respective set of encoded
data slices to produce a plurality of sets of encoded data slices
stored in a first set of storage units of the DSN, and wherein the
second data object is segmented into a plurality of data segments,
each data segment dispersed storage error encoded into a respective
set of encoded data slices to produce a plurality of sets of
encoded data slices stored in a second set of storage units of the
DSN;
obtaining the plurality of sets of encoded data slices of the
second data object;
generating, by the computing device of the DSN, a second
plurality of sets of slice names based, at least in part, on a first
plurality of sets of slice names associated with the first data object,
the second plurality of sets of slice names including a slice name
for each encoded data slice of the plurality of sets of encoded data
slices of the second data object, wherein the second plurality
of sets of slice names and the first plurality of sets of slice names
indicate a common set of storage units of the DSN; and
in response to the data object co-locate write request,
transmitting the plurality of sets of encoded data slices of the
second data object for storage in the common set of storage units
of the DSN using the second plurality of sets of slice names.

claims 1 and 13 over the present rejection are applicable in distinguishing
claims 3–12 and 14–19 over the same rejection.”). Accordingly, we select
independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(2019) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are
argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single
claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the
ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the
selected claim alone.”).
Appeal 2020-005607
Application 14/292,662

4

References
Name4 Reference Date
Antani US 2009/0089428 A1 April 2, 2009
Grube US 2011/0289122 A1 November 24, 2011
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1 and 3–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant
regards as the invention. Final Action 2–5.
Claims 1 and 3–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Grube and Antani. Final Action 5–29.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection
Appellant contends that:
in the subsequent Advisory Action dated October 11, 2019, the
proposed amendments [filed September 30, 2019] were not entered
on the grounds that (1) the amendments raise new issues that would
require further consideration and/or search and (2) the amendments
raise the issue of new matter. Applicant respectfully disagrees with
the underlying rejections and the decision not to enter the proposed
claim amendments.
Appeal Brief 8; see Advisory Action 2; see also Answer 3.

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.

Appeal 2020-005607
Application 14/292,662

5

The review of the Examiner’s refusal to enter the 37 C.F.R. § 1.116
amendment is a petitionable matter and, therefore, not before us in this appeal.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(2) (2019).5 Accordingly, we summarily sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claims 1 and 3–20.
35 U.S.C. §103 rejection
The Examiner finds Grube teaches the claimed invention with the
exception that, “Grube does not explicitly teach co-locate write requests.
Grube does not explicitly teach generating a generated plurality of sets of
slice names (for the second data segment) based, at least in part slice names
associated with tile first data object.” Final Action 9. The Examiner cites
Antani to address Grube’s noted deficiencies. See Final Action 9–10.

5 “A brief shall not include any new or non-admitted amendment, or any new or
non-admitted affidavit or other Evidence. See § 1.116 of this title for treatment
of amendments, affidavits or other evidence filed after final action but before or
on the same date of filing an appeal and § 41.33 for treatment of amendments,
affidavits or other Evidence filed after the date of filing the appeal. Review of
an examiner’s refusal to admit an amendment or Evidence is by petition to the
Director. See § 1.181 of this title.”
Appeal 2020-005607
Application 14/292,662

6

Appellant’s “Figure 1 is a schematic block diagram of an embodiment
of a distributed computing system in accordance with the present disclosure”
(Specification 2) reproduced below:

Figure 1 is a schematic block diagram of an embodiment of a
distributed computing system 10 that includes a user device 12
and/or a user device 14, a distributed storage and/or task (DST)
processing unit 16, a distributed storage and/or task network (DSTN)
managing unit 18, a DST integrity processing unit 20, and a
distributed storage and/or task network (DSTN) module 22.
Specification 7.
Appeal 2020-005607
Application 14/292,662

7

Grube’s “FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram of an embodiment of a
computing system in accordance with the invention” (Grube ¶ 15) reproduced
below:

FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram of a computing system 10 that
includes one or more of a first type of user devices 12, one or more
of a second type of user devices 14, at least one distributed storage
(DS) processing unit 16, at least one DS managing unit 18, at least
one storage integrity processing unit 20, and a distributed storage
network (DSN) memory 22 coupled via a network 24.
Grube ¶ 43.

Appeal 2020-005607
Application 14/292,662

8

Further, Appellant’s “Figure 47 A is a schematic block diagram of
another embodiment of a dispersed storage network (DSN) system in accordance
with the present disclosure” (Specification 5) reproduced below:

Figure 47 A is a schematic block diagram of another embodiment of
a dispersed storage network (DSN) system that includes the
disbursing storage and task (DST) processing unit 16 and the
distributed storage and task network (DSTN) module 22 of Figure
1. The DSTN module 22 includes at least two DST execution unit
sets 1-2. Each DST execution unit set includes a set of DST
execution units 36 of Figure 1. The system functions to store at least
two data objects in a common DST execution unit set.
Specification 85.
Appellant contends:
Pending independent claim 1 recites elements relating to co-located
storage of a first data object and a second data object in response to
a data object co-locate write request, wherein the first and second
data objects are each segmented and dispersed storage error encoded
into respective sets of encoded data slices that have been stored,
respectively, in a first set of DSN storage units and a second set of
storage DSN units.
Appeal Brief 11 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues, “With respect to Grube, the cited sections (see, e.g.,
Final Office Action at page 6, lines 8-12) relate to write operations involving
Appeal 2020-005607
Application 14/292,662

9

data segments 90-92 of a data objection, and do not relate to co-location of
distinct, separately-stored data objects.” Appeal Brief 11 (referencing Grube
¶ 72). We agree with both Appellant and the Examiner that Grube’s DSN
write operation (DS processing module 34) involves a data object segmented
into a plurality of data segments (90, 92) as opposed to the claimed DSN’s
write operation of multiple data objects segmented into a plurality of data
segments and co-located. See Final Action 9; Grube’s Figure 1 (elements
22, 36); Appellant’s Figure 1 (elements 22, 36), Figure 47A (elements 22,
36).
However, claim 1 merely duplicates Grube’s disclosure of a write
operation for a data object by requiring write operations for first and second
data objects. See Grube’s Figure 1 (elements 16, 22); Appellant’s Figure 1
(elements 16, 22), Figure 47A (elements 16, 22). We note, in regard to the
claimed invention, other than writing for multiple segmented data objects as
opposed to writing for a segmented data object; the claimed writing
operations for the data objects are duplications of Grube’s writing operation.
“It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable
significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” See In re
Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (1960). Therefore, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument that the claimed writing operation for multiple data
objects demonstrates nonobviousness.
Appellant argues:
The Antani reference is relied upon overcoming the
shortcomings of Grube. In contrast to the claimed subject matter,
however, the non-analogous Antani reference instead relates to
relocation of a functionally dependent and tightly coupled
component of an application from a second application server 18
a first application server 16, and is far enough removed from the
Appeal 2020-005607
Application 14/292,662

10

field of distributed storage of data that it would be non-analogous
from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Appeal Brief 12.
Whether a reference in the prior art is “analogous” is a fact question.
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Panduit Corp. v.
Dennison Mfg., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 n.9 (Fed. Cir.)). Two criteria have
evolved for determining whether prior art
is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.
Id. (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood,
599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)).
A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in
a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one
which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would
have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering
his problem. Thus, the purposes of both the invention and the
prior art are important in determining whether the reference is
reasonably pertinent to the problem the invention attempts to
solve. If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the
claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and
that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness
rejection.
In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 659.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error because Antani
discloses wherein “the analysis facility 30 then conveys a request to a relocation
agent 32 to autonomically co-locate one of the first and second components 20
and 22 to the server having the other of the first and second components 20 and
22.” Antani ¶ 14 (emphasis added); see Answer 5. Consequently, even
Appeal 2020-005607
Application 14/292,662

11

assuming that Antani is not from the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s
claimed invention, Antani meets the second prong of the analogous test. Antani
is reasonably pertinent to the problem which Appellant’s claimed invention is
involved, i.e., the problem of co-locating separate data files or objects in storage.
See Antani ¶¶ 14–16; Answer 6–7. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 13, as well as, of dependent
claims 3–12 and 14–19, not argued separately. See Appeal Brief 12.
Appellant contends:
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 17, Applicant further
submits that the cited sections of Grube and Antani do not support
the propositions for which it is cited. In particular the Final Office
Action (at pages 12, 22 and 23) merely points to the vault ID field,
DNS address ranges, and universal routing information field of
Grube and paragraph 16 of Antani, without attempting to show how
such elements support a teaching or suggestion for “modifying a
value of the second vault ID field to match a value of the first vault
ID field” ( claim 6 and 17) or “modify an object number field value
of the second data identifier to be in a range of object number field
values associated with an object number field value of the first data
identifier” (claim 17). Accordingly, dependent claims 6 and 17 are
believed to be allowable over the art of record for at least these
additional reasons.
Appeal Brief 12–13.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. The
Examiner indicates the sections or portions of both Grube and Antani relied
upon to support the obviousness rejection of both dependent claims 6 and
17. See Final Action 12, 22 and 23. Appellant’s arguments fail address the
merits of the Examiner’s findings. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted
Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a
mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the
Appeal 2020-005607
Application 14/292,662

12

corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 6 and 17.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–20 112 Indefiniteness 1, 3–20
1, 3–20 103 Grube, Antani 1, 3–20
Overall
Outcome

1, 3–20

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)(v).

AFFIRMED