Dan Dobre

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 2019

14416309 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2019)

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. 14/416,309 01/22/2015 Dan Dobre 814743 2565 95683 7590 08/02/2019 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office) Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900 180 North Stetson Avenue Chicago, IL 60601-6731 EXAMINER LE, JESSICA N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2157 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2019 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): chgpatent@leydig.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAN DOBRE ________________ Appeal 2018-007869 Application 14/416,3091 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KEVIN F. TURNER, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1‒8, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is the NEC Laboratories Europe GmbH. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2018-007869 Application 14/416,309 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to cloud storage systems that use timestamps to determine the most recent version of data. Abstract. Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method for replicating data in a cloud storage system supporting multiple clients, wherein the cloud storage system comprises a plurality of object stores for storing data objects, the method comprising: requesting, by a client, values and associated timestamps for a data object from a first quorum of the object stores, determining, by the client, a most recent value of the data object based on the associated timestamps, and performing, by the client, a compare-and-swap procedure, so that the data object is updated with the most recent value and the data object is stored in a second quorum of the object stores, wherein the compare-and-swap procedure, for a respective one of the object stores, includes comparing a requested one of the timestamps from the respective one of the object stores with a current timestamp of the respective one of the object stores and updating the data object with the most recent value based on a determination that the requested one of the timestamps from the respective one of the object stores is equal to the current timestamp of the respective one of the object stores. The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1‒8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tung (US 2013/0085999 A1; Apr. 4, 2013) and Chandrasekaran (US 2004/0213387 Al; Oct. 28, 2004). Final Act. 6‒11. Appeal 2018-007869 Application 14/416,309 3 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Tung and Chandrasekaran teaches or suggests “updating the data object with the most recent value based on a determination that the requested one of the timestamps from the respective one of the object stores is equal to the current timestamp of the respective one of the object stores.” In particular, the Examiner finds Chandrasekaran teaches a compare-and-swap procedure that updates a data object value as claimed. Final Act. 8 (citing Chandrasekaran ¶¶ 1, 3, 4, 6, 48, 52, 53, Abstract, Figs. 1, 6); Ans. 12‒15 (citing Chandrasekaran ¶¶ 44, 48, 52‒54). Appellant argues the Examiner erred because Chandrasekaran does not teach updating a data object based on the timestamp associated with the data object in the data store being equal to the current timestamp of the data object. Reply Br. 2‒3. Appellant argues Chandrasekaran teaches updating the data object in the data store only if the current timestamp is newer than the timestamp of the data object, not in the instance of equality between the timestamps. Id. (citing Chandrasekaran ¶ 54, Fig. 6). Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. As Appellant argues, Chandrasekaran teaches updating a data object in a data store based on a comparison of the associated timestamps. See Chandrasekaran ¶¶ 52‒54. However, Chandrasekaran does not teach the update operation occurring if the associated timestamps are equal. See id. Instead, Chandrasekaran teaches that the update operations in both of the cited embodiments depicted in figures 5 and 6 do not proceed if the associated timestamps are equal. See Chandrasekaran ¶¶ 53, 54, Figs. 5, 6. Specifically, in the embodiment depicted in Figure 5, the update operation in step 520 does not occur if the Appeal 2018-007869 Application 14/416,309 4 timestamps are determined to be equal in step 510. Chandrasekaran ¶ 53, Fig. 5. Similarly, in the embodiment depicted in Figure 6, the update operation in step 620 does not occur if the timestamps are determined to be equal in step 610. Id. ¶ 54, Fig. 6. Thus, the Examiner has failed to provide adequate explanation how or why an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand Chandrasekaran to teach “updating the data object with the most recent value based on a determination that the requested one of the timestamps from the respective one of the object stores is equal to the current timestamp of the respective one of the object stores,” as claimed. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Tung and Chandrasekaran. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 6, which recites commensurate subject matter, and dependent claims 2‒5, 7, and 8. DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1‒8. REVERSED