CLEVERSAFE, INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 29, 20212020005607 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation