Ex Parte BRAAM et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2019

13550021 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/550,021
98068 7590
Hollingsworth Davis
8000 West 78th Street
Suite 450
07/16/2012
01/28/2019
Minneapolis, MN 55439
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter BRAAM
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.
STX.148.Al 9981
EXAMINER
HARMON, COURTNEY N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2019 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):
tdotter@hdpatlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER BRAAM, NIKITA DANILOV,
NATHANIEL RUTMAN, and YURIYUMANETS 1
Appeal2018-004003
Application 13/550,021
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-12, 14--16, 18, and 23-27,2 constituting the
only claims on appeal before us. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm. 3
1 The Appeal Brief indicates the real party in interest is Seagate
Technology, LLC. (App. Br. 1 ).
2 Claims 5, 13, 17, and 19-22 were canceled by Amendment dated May 10,
2016.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed July 16, 2012, the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed June 8, 2016, the Appeal Brief
Appeal2018-004003
Application 13/550,021
CLAIMED INVENTION
A computer's operating system uses a file system for organizing and
retrieving files in a storage system, which may include hard disk drives.
Spec. 1. A typical file system consists of a hierarchy of directories
( catalogues, folders) organized into a tree structure. Id. To preserve a
record of data stored on a storage system, it is desirable to back up the
contents and file structure of a file system. Id. Previously known
approaches to backing up a file system required excessive downtime. Id. In
contrast, the invention produces a coherent replica of a source file system
while the file system is in use. Id. at 3. Claim 1, shown below, is illustrative
of the claimed invention:
1. A method comprising:
activating a changelog that stores metadata relating to
modifications made to a source file system between a first time
and a second time;
recording a first record of the changelog corresponding to
the first time;
initiating a scan of directory inodes of the source file
system at the first time and completing the scan at the second
time, wherein directory entry objects corresponding to the
scanned directory inodes are formed based on the scan;
adding the directory entry objects to a database, the
database comprising no duplicate directory entry objects and
reducing the file system to a name-space structure;
after the second time, marking a last record of the
changelog corresponding to the second time;
processing the changelog in order from the first record to
the last record, the processing comprising:
decomposing each record of the changelog into one or
more history records each comprising an atomic operation
corresponding to the directory entry objects of the database; and
("App. Br.") filed June 19, 2017, and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.")
mailed December 28, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-004003
Application 13/550,021
combining the history records with the database so that
changes to the directory objects are consistently ordered by
object version; and
building a target file system based on the directory entry
objects in the database such that the target file system
comprises a coherent replica of a directory structure of the
source file system at the second time.
App. Br. 13 (Claims App'x).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 9-11, 18, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) based on Holenstein et al. (US 2012/0101990 Al, published April
26, 2012) and Malaiyandi et al. (US 2009/0030983 Al, published January
29, 2009). Final Act. 3-11.
Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based on
Holenstein, Malaiyandi, and Mu et al. (US 8,055,613 Bl, issued November
8, 2011). Final Act. 12.
Claims 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
based on Holenstein, Malaiyandi, and Reed et al. (US 6,088,717, issued July
11, 2000). Final Act. 12-17.
Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based on
Holenstein, Malaiyandi, and Shi et al. (US 2009/0300077 Al, published
December 3, 2009). Final Act. 17-19.
3
Appeal2018-004003
Application 13/550,021
ANALYSIS
"Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when 'the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains."' KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007) ("KSR"). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the
prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called
secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18
(1966).
Independent Claims 1, 9, and 23
Appellants argue that "[ n ]either Holenstein nor Malaiyandi are
directed to determining changes to a file system while a scan is proceeding,
then applying the changes after the scan is complete." App. Br. 7. Although
this is what the Specification describes as the purpose of the invention
(Spec. 1 ), we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 2) that no such limitations
appear in the claims. Appellants' argument is, thus, not commensurate in
scope with the claims presented on appeal. In this regard, we note that our
reviewing court has held that, although the claims are interpreted in light of
the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the
claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Limitations that
do not appear in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
4
Appeal2018-004003
Application 13/550,021
Appellants next argue that
Holenstein does not teach or suggest the use of a database to
subsequently create a target file system as is alleged in the
Office Action (e.g., [Final] Office Action at page 4, lines 8-13).
Holenstein merely describes updating of the target database as
an end in itself.
App. Br. 8. Appellants' argument, however, attacks Holenstein individually,
and fails to consider what the combination of Holenstein and Malaiyandi
would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCP A 1981 )). Specifically, Holenstein discloses replication of
transaction data from a source database to a target database. Holenstein,
Abstract. Malaiyandi discloses "mirroring of changes made to a source file
system in a destination replica file system." Malaiyandi ,r 14. Combining
these teachings of Holenstein and Malaiyandi, a person of ordinary skill
would understand that a source file system in a source database could be
replicated in a destination replica file system stored in the target database.
Thus, the combination of references teaches and suggests the destination
replica file system is created from the source database. The claims do not
specify that the "database" is any particular type of database, such as a target
database, and, consequently, the Examiner's interpretation is not precluded
by the claims.
It must be borne in mind that "the PTO is obligated to give claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination." In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). We
understand the Examiner to have properly viewed the claimed "database"
broadly, but reasonably, to encompass a source database, a target database,
5
Appeal2018-004003
Application 13/550,021
or a combination of the two. See Final Act. 4. Because, in the combination
of references the replica file system is created from the source database, the
combination of Holenstein and Malaiyandi teaches the replica file system is
created from a "database" as claimed. Thus, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' argument.
Appellants further argue "Holenstein is directed to commercial
transaction databases, and not file systems." App. Br. 8. Appellants contend
"because Holenstein is unrelated to replication of file systems, the teachings
of Holenstein cannot be relied upon to teach the claimed details related to
the changelogs." Id. at 8.
To the extent that Appellants are arguing that Holenstein and
Malaiyandi are not analogous, the Examiner found that the references are
"both from the same field of endeavor of database systems." Final Act. 5, 7,
10. "Prior art is analogous if it is from the same field of endeavor or
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem the inventor is trying to
solve." Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(citing Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Appellants do not address with particularity the Examiner's finding that the
references are analogous. Because the claims recite the use of a "database"
(App. Br. 29, 31, and 32 (Claims App'x)) and Appellants do not refute the
Examiner's finding that Holenstein and Malaiyandi are from the field of
endeavor of database systems, the record supports the Examiner's finding
that the references are analogous to the claimed invention because they are
in the same field of endeavor.
Alternatively, if Appellants intended to argue there is a lack of
motivation to combine the references, the Examiner stated the motivation to
6
Appeal2018-004003
Application 13/550,021
combine is to "improve reliability and facilitate disaster recovery in the
event of a failure." Id. The motivation is quoted from paragraph 10 of
Malaiyandi, which states in full:
In order to improve reliability and facilitate disaster recovery in
the event of a failure of a storage system, its associated disks or
some portion of the storage infrastructure, it is common to
mirror ( or replicate) a data set comprising some or all of the
underlying data and/ or the file system that organizes the data. A
data set comprises an area of defined storage which may have a
mirroring relationship associated therewith. Examples of data
sets include, e.g., a file system, a volume or a persistent
consistency point image (PCPI), described further below.
Thus, it is clear that Malaiyandi contemplates replication not only of data,
but also of a file system, to "improve reliability and facilitate disaster
recovery in the event of a failure." Id. Moreover, Malaiyandi specifically
mentions a "database application." Malaiyandi ,r 9. Likewise, Holenstein
states "an independent backup system is provided, one that can continue to
provide data processing services in the event of a failure of the primary
system." Holenstein ,r 5. Thus, Holenstein and Malaiyandi are directed to
similar technologies solving similar problems of how to replicate data to
recover from a failure in database systems. Consequently, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consider their
teachings together. We thus conclude that the Examiner demonstrated
"there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
claimed." KSR at 418.
In addition, Appellants argue "[b ]ecause databases are not taught in
Holenstein as having this hierarchical format, it is not reasonable to suggest
that the Audit Trail, DOC, and/or Change Log described in Holestein would
7
Appeal2018-004003
Application 13/550,021
be applicable in performing atomic operations on file systems." App. Br. 9.
The Examiner finds the argument unpersuasive because the "hierarchical
format" is not recited in the claims. Ans. 3. We agree with the Examiner
that the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims as
presented on appeal, which fail to recite anything concerning a hierarchical
format or performing atomic operations.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in the rejection
of claims 1, 9, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Holenstein and
Malaiyandi.
Claims 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 15
Claims 4 and 12 each recite "wherein each directory object entry
comprises a parent object identifier, a parent object version, a filename, a
child object identifier and a child object version of the associated directory
inode, wherein each of the directory entry objects of the database have a
unique combination of the parent object identifier, the filename, and the
child object identifier." App. Br. 14, 16 (Claims App'x). The remaining
claims depend from either claim 4 or claim 12.
Appellants argue for patentability of claims 4 and 12 on the same
basis as their respective independent claims 1 and 9, which we find
unpersuasive for reasons explained in the previous section.
Appellants also argue the "parent" relationships described in Reed and
cited by the Examiner to teach this feature, are object-oriented inheritance
relationships. App. Br. 10 (citing Reed, Fig. 3, 39:49--54). Appellants aver
"object-oriented inheritance has nothing to do with the parent-child
relationships in a hierarchical file system." Id. Appellants further argue that
a word search revealed Reed does not mention the terms "child," "file name"
8
Appeal2018-004003
Application 13/550,021
or filename" and Reed's teachings "are largely irrelevant to the unique
combination of parent/child identifiers and filename described in claims 4
and 12." Id. at 11.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments. At the outset, we note that
the claims recite "directory entry objects" and thus Reed's teachings of
object-oriented architectures are in the same field of endeavor of database
systems, particularly object-oriented ones, and are thus analogous to the
claimed invention. We also note that Holenstein states "[ t ]he record or row
that is making the reference is known as the child. The record or row being
referenced is the parent." Holenstein ,r 105. See also Ans. 5-6 citing Reed
39:48-58; 45:23-34. Thus, parent-child relationships are well-understood
and used extensively in database systems, as Holenstein and Reed
demonstrate. Likewise, versioning of different objects or attributes (see
Ans. 3; Reed Fig. 3, 20:17-23, 22:10-15; 30:5-11), and the use of unique
identifiers to identify an object or file within a namespace (Ans. 4; Reed
24:27-38; 35:22--43), were well-understood and known in this art. Use of
inodes was also known. Final Act. 4--5 citing Malaiyandi ,r,r 13-14 (logical
file block index).
These observations lead to the conclusion that the only candidate in
claims 4 and 12 which potentially could be patentable is that "the directory
entry objects of the database have a unique combination of the parent object
identifier, the filename, and the child object identifier." The Examiner,
however, found that Reed discloses parent identifiers, filename, and child
identifiers, a finding Appellants do not dispute. Ans. 3--4 citing Reed Fig. 3,
Fig. 10a, 18:31--45. Moreover, the person of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood the desirability of using unique values for each of the
9
Appeal2018-004003
Application 13/550,021
parent object identifier, the filename, and the child object identifier: else, the
corresponding objects or files could not be referenced properly by a
computer. Furthermore, the combination of unique identifiers and filenames
would necessarily be unique in view of the uniqueness of each of the
individual identifiers. Appellants do not present any evidence that the
inclusion of these three identifiers together would have been uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art. See Leapfrog
Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we do not find this argument persuasive to show Examiner
error.
Appellants further argue the Examiner used an improper rationale to
combine Reed with Holenstein and Malaiyandi. Appellants state the
Examiner's rationale was that Reed discloses "storage of backup copies of
the provider database 11 or consumer database 21 in order to prevent data
loss from corruption, hardware failures, or other problems." App. Br. 11
citing Final Act. 13; Reed 93:26-31. Appellants argue "this explanation
provides no rational connection between this cursory description of backup
copies and Reed's purported teaching of directory entry objects with a
unique combination of parent object identifier, filename, and child object
identifier." Id.
Similar to Holenstein and Malaiyandi, Reed also teaches backing up
databases, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to consider the teachings of these references together given their
technical similarities and similar purposes. See, e.g., Holenstein, Abstract;
Malaiyandi ,r 14; Reed 93:28-31. Also, Reed's teaching of backing up a
database would necessarily result in backing up not only the data, but also
10
Appeal2018-004003
Application 13/550,021
their associated unique object identifiers and filenames. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.
Remaining Claims
For the reasons explained, we sustain the rejections of the remaining
claims which depend from respective independent claims 1, 9, and 23.
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(v).
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1--4, 6-12, 14--16, 18, and 23-27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
AFFIRMED
11