Ex Parte Bhardwaj et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 28, 2016

12467849 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/467,849 05/18/2009 Manish Bhardwaj 86421 7590 05/02/2016 Patent Capital Group - Cisco 2816 Lago Vista Lane Rockwall, TX 75032 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 01219.017 (960318) 8804 EXAMINER CHANG,TOMY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2456 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2016 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): patbradford@patcapgroup.com peggsu@cisco.com P AIR_86421@patcapgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MANISH BHARDWAJ and JINING TIAN Appeal2014-007154 Application 12/467 ,849 Technology Center 2400 Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and T,,........,. TT-.. T T"""'I TT,,........,. T""ti. "T T A. r-T"iT T ' 1 â€¢ â€¢ , , â€¢ T'lo , , T 1 JUttl"l t<. ttUK v A111, Aamznzsrranve rarenr Juages. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-007154 Application 12/467 ,849 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1---6. Claims 7-12 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim 1. Apparatus comprising: processor in a first network in a system of networks, the networks in the system not being fully meshed with each other; computer readable storage medium bearing instructions to cause the processor to: respond to storage of a piece of content published to the system of networks by a content provider by generating a content descriptor key used to identify a storage location of the content and a hashed content provider identifier (CPI) key associated with a particular content provider of the content, the CPI key used to identify a subset of networks in the system of networks designated by the particular content provider of the piece of content as acceptable for storage of content published to the system of networks by the particular content provider, the subset of networks being less than the entire system of networks, wherein generating the CPI key includes hashing a content provider string identifying the particular content provider; send the content descriptor key only to respective root nodes of the subset of networks; and publish the CPI key only of networks designated by the particular content provider. 2 Appeal2014-007154 Application 12/467 ,849 Castro Ni Ushiyama Despotovic Kodama Prior Art US 2004/0249970 Al US 2008/0177873 Al US 2008/0244067 Al US 2009/0234917 Al US 2010/0228798 Al Examiner's Rejections Dec. 09, 2004 July 24, 2008 Oct. 02, 2008 Sept. 17, 2009 Sept. 09, 2010 Claims 1, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ni, Kodoma, and U shiyama. Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ni, Kodoma, U shiyama, and Despotovic. Claim 6 stands rejected underÂ§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ni, Kodoma, Ushiyama, and Castro. ANALYSIS \Ve adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5 Appellants contend Ni does not teach "generating the CPI key" by "hashing a content provider string identifying the particular content provider" as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2-3. However, Kodama teaches hashing an Internet Service Provider (ISP) name identifying the ISP as shown in Figure 15 and discussed in paragraphs 84 and 92, which 3 Appeal2014-007154 Application 12/467 ,849 teaches "hashing a content provider string identifying the particular content provider" within the meaning of claim 1. See Ans. 4. Appellants contend the Internet Service Provider taught by Kodama is quite different from the claimed content provider because the content provider owns, creates, controls, or otherwise publishes or provides pieces of digital content that can be accessed. App. Br. 6. However, Appellants' Specification does not provide a definition of "content provider" that requires owning, creating, or controlling content. Even accepting Appellants' contention that a content provider publishes or provides digital content that can be accessed, the ISP of Kodama publishes or provides pieces of digital content that can be accessed by storing content in a peer-to- peer storage system. See Kodama Title. Appellants contend the combination of Ni, Kodama, and Ushiyama does not teach "hashing of a content provider name in response to storage of a piece of content published to the system of networks by the corresponding content provider" as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3. The Examiner finds the combination of Ni and Kodama teaches this limitation. See Ans. 3--4. In particular, the Examiner finds Ni teaches using a two stage hash to store and retrieve files, where the first hash identifies an index node in a DHT ring where a file is stored or to be stored, and the second hash identifies a storage node within the DHT ring identified by the first hash where the file is stored or to be stored. Id. at 3. The Examiner further finds Kodoma teaches Ni's first hash of the DHT ring index node can be the hashed name of an ISP content provider, because "using an ISP name of Kodoma is a specific example of a node name that Ni teaches is hashed ... 4 Appeal2014-007154 Application 12/467 ,849 [and] is merely the combination of prior art according to known methods." Id. at 4. We agree with these findings by the Examiner. We also disagree with Appellants' argument that "Kodama does not discuss generating a CPI key ... that involves the hashing of a content provider name in response to storage of a piece of content." App. Br. 6. Cumulative to the Examiner's findings, we highlight that Kodoma discloses calculating hash values for both a file name (step 5401) and an ISP name (step 5404) in response to a put file request 808. Kodoma, Fig. 54. Kodoma explains a client calls the put function to store a file in Kodoma's GDSS (graphical distributed storage system). Id. i-fi-f 144--146. Appellants contend the ISP node table discussed in paragraph 92 of Kodama does not teach a "key used to identify a subset of networks in the system of networks designated by the particular content provider of the piece of content as acceptable for storage of content published to the system of networks by the particular content provider" as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 3--4. Paragraph 92 discusses hashing a value calculated from an ISP name, such as Tokyo I. Figure 15 shows an ISP node table including ISP name Tokyol and corresponding storage nodes 10 and 50, which are "acceptable for storage of content published to the system of networks by the particular content provider" Tokyo 1. Thus, the hashed value calculated from the ISP name Tokyol teaches a key to identify a subset of networks 10 and 50 "acceptable for storage of content published to the system of networks by the particular content provider" Tokyo 1 within the meaning of claim 1. Appellants contend assertions in the foreign prosecution do not justify Official Notice in this case. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4--5. In particular, 5 Appeal2014-007154 Application 12/467 ,849 Appellants contend the Examiner has not provided a reference showing a CPI key, associated with a particular content provider, used to identify a subset of networks in the system of networks designated by the particular content provider of the piece of content as acceptable for storage of content published to the system of networks by the particular content provider as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7. Appellants' contention is inconsistent with paragraph 92 and Figure 15 of Kodama as discussed above. Thus, we find the Examiner's Official Notice cumulative to the teachings of Kodama. We sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5. Section 103 rejection of claims 2 and 3 Appellants do not provide arguments for separate patentability of claims 2 and 3, which fall with claim 1. Section 103 rejection of claim 6 Appellants contend Castro alone does not teach generating the content descriptor key recited in claim 6. App. Br. 9-11. In particular, Appellants argue although Castro teaches concatenating a content provider string with a hashed value of a file name, Castro fails to teach hashing a concatenated file name and content provider string. Id. The Examiner finds the combination of Ni, Kodama, Ushiyama, and Castro teach generating the content descriptor key recited in claim 6. Ans. 11-13. In particular, the Examiner finds Ni teaches hashing a filename in a DHT system, Kodoma teaches hashing a content provider string in a DHT system, and Castro teaches concatenating strings to locate files in a DHT system. Ans. 12. The Examiner further finds hashing the particular file name and content provider 6 Appeal2014-007154 Application 12/467 ,849 strings recited in claim 6 are finite variations of the hashing techniques taught by Ni, Kodoma, and Castro and would have, therefore, been obvious to try. Id. at 12-13. Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings with which we agree. We sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 103 rejection of claim 6. DECISION The rejections of claims 1-6 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 7