Duvon Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 10, 2022

2021001561 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 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. 14/701,830 05/01/2015 Benedict Ow DUVON-9-0010 8144 102472 7590 03/10/2022 Lightbulb IP, LLC 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Suite 160-205 Las Vegas, NV 89135 EXAMINER CAO, PHUONG THAO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2022 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BENEDICT OW, ANDREW PLATTER, DMITRY KOGOSOV, and RICHARD STILES ____________________ Appeal 2021-001561 Application 14/701,830 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s Final decision rejecting claims 1-20.1 Appeal Br. 3. 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. Appellant identifies Duvon Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-001561 Application 14/701,830 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 and 8 are illustrative (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added): 1. A media access device comprising: [A.] one or more internal storage devices having a plurality of physical storage partitions, wherein the plurality of physical storage partitions are dynamically defined on demand by configuration parameters and comprise physically demarcated storage space on the one or more internal storage devices; [B.] one or more databases storing a plurality of user groups, each of the plurality of user groups comprising one or more user accounts and associated with a distinct one of the plurality of physical storage partitions; [C.] one or more communication devices that receive a plurality of files from users; and [D.] one or more processors that, for each file in the plurality of files: [i.] identify the user that transmitted the file; [ii.] identify a user group in the plurality of user groups to which the identified user belongs; and [iii.] store the file in the distinct one of the plurality of physical storage partitions associated with the identified user group; [E.] wherein at least two of the plurality of files are received from users in different user groups. 8. A media access device comprising: [A.] one or more internal storage devices comprising a first partition and a second partition, wherein the first partition and the second partition comprise physically demarcated storage space on the one or more internal Appeal 2021-001561 Application 14/701,830 3 storage devices and are dynamically defined on demand by configuration parameters; [B.] one or more databases storing a plurality of user groups, the plurality of user groups comprising a first group and a second group; [C.] one or more communication devices that receive one or more files from a user; and [D.] one or more processors that: [i.] determine if the user is in the first group or the second group; [ii.] store the one or more files in the first partition if the user is in the first group; and [iii.] store the one or more files in the second partition if the user is in the second group. REFERENCES2 The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Nakazato US 2008/0301388 A1 Dec. 4, 2008 We cite the following additional references: Name Reference Date McBrearty US 2004/0015668 A1 Jan. 22, 2004 Graham US 2005/0071446 A1 Mar. 31, 2005 Rutkowski US 2006/0262927 A1 Nov. 23, 2006 Frank US 2010/0299495 A1 Nov. 25, 2010 2 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2021-001561 Application 14/701,830 4 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Appellant argues the following: All of the pending independent claims recite one or more storage devices having a plurality of physical storage partitions (Claims 1, 8, 15). When a file is stored, it is stored in a distinct one of the plurality of physical storage partitions associated with an identified user group. Id. A “partition” is a term in the art of data storage that ordinarily and customarily means a physically demarcated space in a storage device such that partitions do not overlap one another. As supported by Applicant’s previously submitted evidence from a trade publication in the art, “[a] partition is a section of a storage device, such as a hard disk drive or solid state drive. It is treated by the operating system as a separate logical volume, which makes it function similar to a separate physical device.” (September 24, 2019 Request for Continued Examination, Exhibit B, para. 1). Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis and formatting added). Appellant is mistaken in stating that “[a]ll of the pending independent claims recite . . . a plurality of physical storage partitions.” Appeal Br. 5. Only claim 1 contains such language. Rather claims 8 and 15 merely recite “a first partition and a second partition.” The actual shared language among claims 1, 8, and 15 is that claim 1’s “physical storage partitions” comprise “physically demarcated storage space,” and claim 8’s and 15’s “first partition and second partition” comprise “physically demarcated storage space.” Although not pointed out by Appellant, in the art, a “partition” may refer to either a “physical partition” of a physical storage device, or a “logical partition” that maps to addresses of a “physical partition” of a Appeal 2021-001561 Application 14/701,830 5 physical storage device. Both “physical partition” and “logical partition” are terms of art. See e.g., Graham ¶ 56; Frank ¶ 24; Rutkowski ¶ 28; and McBrearty ¶¶ 6 and 25. However, the claim 1 phrase “physical storage partitions” is not a term of art, and also does not appear in Appellant’s application as originally filed, and has been newly added to claim 1 during prosecution. Similarly, the phrase “physically demarcated storage space” is not a term of art, and also does not appear in Appellant’s application as originally filed, and has been newly added to claims 1, 8, and 15 during prosecution. We interpret each newly added claim phrase by giving the phrase its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s Specification as originally filed. The Dynamic Multiple Assignable Partition (DMAP) system enables the device owner to manage the assignment and partitioning of the user owned storage, as well as managing the use of any external (wired or wireless) storage connected to the Secured Media Distribution System. . . . The DMAP method provides a system and method to allow a storage repository (such as a hard drive) to be partitioned multiple times and with multiple configurations to allow one or more parties to utilize the storage repository. . . . [T]he DMAP may be utilized to create and administrate separate storage repositories on a hard drive to enable a user managed partition to operate separately and independently from a provider managed partition for storage of digital content within a secured media distribution system. . . . Moreover, these partitions can be managed and redefined, even after the initial partition assignment has taken place. Spec. 5 (emphasis added). It is understood that the storage can be (but is not limited to) a physical drive with dual (dedicated) partitions, one for the user and one for the provider, or completely separate physical drives. Appeal 2021-001561 Application 14/701,830 6 Spec. 14 (emphasis added). A storage device may utilize various data storage technologies for reliably storing data thereon. For example, a storage device may be a magnetic hard drive, flash drive, or optical drive in one or more embodiments. Typically, the provider managed storage 225 and user managed storage 226 will be separate storage areas. It is contemplated that the provider managed storage 225 and user managed storage 226 may be separate storage areas or partitions on a single physical storage device or multiple storage devices. Spec. 16 (emphasis added). As to the newly added claim phrase “physical storage partitions,” we interpret it as requiring the disclosed “partitions [be] on a single physical storage device or multiple [physical] storage devices.” Spec. 16 (emphasis added). That is, like the Specification, in this phrase we interpret “physical” as modifying “storage” rather than “partitions.” Although the Specification is replete with the term “partition,” we do not find any use of either art term “physical partition” or “logical partition” in the Specification, nor do we find any disclosure which would lead an artisan to understand the either type of partitioning is being particularly described. At best, we find disclosure of physical storage devices, and that “partitioning” (of some form) is occurring on the physical storage device. As both “physical partitioning” and “logical partitioning” are applicable to accessing separate physical storage areas on a physical storage device and we find Appellant’s application is silent as to which is used, we do not interpret the claim phrase “physical storage partitions” as “physical partitions.”3 3 Moreover, if Appellant’s claim(s) were amended to explicitly require such “physical partitions,” we would reject such a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking written description support. Appeal 2021-001561 Application 14/701,830 7 As to the newly added claim phrase “physically demarcated storage space,” we interpret it as merely requiring a conventional physical storage device with partitions that are physically separate storage areas. As we point out supra, in the art, a “partition” may refer to either a “physical partition” of a physical storage device, or a “logical partition” which maps to addresses of a “physical partition” of a physical storage device. Appellant asserts: The above evidence of Exhibits A and B, included herewith, demonstrates that a “partition” is known in the art as a particular type of physical entity, namely a physical area of a storage device having physical metes and bounds, i.e., a physical size. Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis added). To the contrary, an artisan would understand a “partition” is known in the art as a particular type of physical or logical entity each of which comprise physically demarcated storage space. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Nakazato. Final Act. 4-17. Appellant does not argue separate patentability for claims 1-20. Although claim 1 contains terminology not required by claims 8 and 15, we select claim 1 as representative. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of this anticipation rejection of claims 2-20 further herein. OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments. Appeal 2021-001561 Application 14/701,830 8 A. Appellant’s “Storage Areas” Arguments Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Nakazato because: (a) the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited physical storage partitions does not encompass Nakazato’s storage areas (Appeal Br. 5) which are akin to the folders and directories and are not any kind of physical storage partition as they are not physical entities (Appeal Br. 7); and (b) the available evidence makes clear that not every storage space or area can be properly considered to be a partition (Reply Br. 4); and the term “partition” is “entirely absent from Nakazato’s disclosure” (Appeal Br. 7). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree with Appellant’s argument (b) that not every storage space or area can be properly considered to be a partition. Appellant correctly points out that folders and directories should not be considered physical storage partitions. Appeal Br. 5. However, the Examiner also correctly points out “folders/directories has not been interpreted to be the claimed partition. Instead, as explained above, the storage areas [of Nakazato] are the claimed partition.” Ans. 4. As to argument (a), we disagree with Appellant that the recited physical storage partitions does not encompass Nakazato’s storage areas. Nakazato discloses: The storage section 12 is a computer-readable information storage medium including at least either of a memory device of RAM, ROM, etc., and a disk device such as a hard disk, for example. Nakazato ¶ 15 (emphasis added). Appeal 2021-001561 Application 14/701,830 9 Further, in the embodiment, a plurality of data storage areas 14 (information storage areas) are set in the storage section 12. . . . For each data storage area 14, a system manager presets the reference value of the data amount of one or more stored data pieces (stored information pieces) to be stored in the data storage area 14. Nakazato ¶ 16 (emphasis added). The data storage restriction section 21 executes control for restricting the amount of stored data in each data storage area 14 (total of the data sizes of the stored data) in response to a predetermined reference value about each of the data storage areas 14. Nakazato ¶ 25. Contrary to Appellant’s argument that Nakazato’s data storage areas are not physical entities and are akin to folders or directories, Nakazato discloses that the data storage areas 14 “are set” in the storage section 12 (physical storage). We conclude the act of setting the storage areas in Nakazato’s physical storage would be understood by an artisan as partitioning the physical storage. As to argument (c), a reference does not have to satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test to disclose a claimed element, therefore Appellant’s demand for such an exacting match of the “partition” term is not persuasive of error. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We conclude the Examiner correctly determines Nakazato teaches “one or more internal storage devices having a plurality of physical storage partitions.” Final Act. 4. Appeal 2021-001561 Application 14/701,830 10 B. Appellant’s “Definite Size” Arguments Also, Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Nakazato because: (a) Nakazato does not disclose physical storage partitions with a definite size. (Appeal Br. 6-8); (b) “the Examiner’s Answer simply avoids addressing the cited disclosure of Nakazato at paragraphs 26 and 40 by asserting that a size limit is not required by the claims” (Reply Br. 5 (emphasis added)); and (c) paragraphs 26 and 40 show that Nakazato cannot work with defined size limits (Id.). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As to argument (b), we find no such assertion in the Examiner’s Answer. Rather, the Examiner Answer finds that: Nakazato et al. discloses that a data storage area ha[s] a size (i.e., a reference value) to limit the amount of data stored in it (see [0025]) and the data storage areas can be dynamically defined with a new size (i.e., changed reference value) according to some predetermined condition (see [0028], [0030] and [0040]). Ans. 4-5. As to argument (c), we disagree with Appellant’s argument that cited paragraphs 26 and 40 of Nakazato show Nakazato cannot work with defined size limits. Paragraph 26 states that “if the data storage restriction section 21 determines that the total amount will exceed the reference value, it may refuse to store the requested new data.” Paragraph 40 states that “[i]f the stored data in each data storage area 14 satisfies a predetermined condition, the reference value change section 23 may change the reference value.” We fail to see how this (or any other portion of paragraphs 26 and 40) supports Appellant’s argument. Appeal 2021-001561 Application 14/701,830 11 As to argument (a), we disagree with Appellant for the reasons set forth by the Examiner at pages 4-5 of the Answer. In support of this argument, Appellant asserts: The above evidence of Exhibits A and B, included herewith, demonstrates that a “partition” is known in the art as a particular type of physical entity, namely a physical area of a storage device having physical metes and bounds, i.e., a physical size. Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis added). We conclude that to the contrary, an artisan would understand a “partition” is known in the art as a particular type of physical or logical entity each of which having physical metes and bounds, i.e., physically demarcated storage space. Although the Examiner addresses Appellant’s “physical size” argument, this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim language, as the requirement of “physical size” is not recited in claim 1. C. Appellant’s “Dynamic Partitioning” Arguments Further, Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Nakazato because: (a) the claimed elements of physical storage partitions and dynamic partitioning must both be disclosed (Appeal Br. 8-9); and (b) the Examiner continues to assert that the dynamic partitioning capability described in the specification negates the requirement of a physical storage partition (Reply Br. 6). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As to argument (b), we find no such assertion in the Examiner’s Answer. Rather, the Examiner Answer finds that: Nakazato et al. teaches an information processing apparatus 1 comprising a storage section 14 (i.e., a memory device or a disk device) (see [0015]) which includes a plurality Appeal 2021-001561 Application 14/701,830 12 of data storage areas 14 (see Fig. 1), wherein each data storage area has a data/storage size defined by a reference value (see [0005] and [0025]) and is located on a storage section (i.e.,. a memory device or a disk device). Therefore, a data storage area as disclosed by Nakazato et al. is a physical storage partition with a definite size. In addition, Nakazato et al. teaches that the data storage areas on the storage section can be redefined (i.e., dynamic partitioning) based on changed reference value for each data storage area, and once the changed reference value is set for a data storage area, the amount of data to be stored in each data storage area is restricted/limited in response to the changed reference value (see [0028] and [0030]). Obviously, a reference value defines a storage size of a data storage area (see [0005] and [0025]). Ans. 5-6. As to argument (a), we disagree with Appellant for the reasons set forth by the Examiner at pages 5-6 of the Answer. CONCLUSION The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-20, as being anticipated by Nakazato under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 102(a)(1) Nakazato 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). Appeal 2021-001561 Application 14/701,830 13 AFFIRMED