Ex Parte BRIDGES

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2018

13925769 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/925,769 06/24/2013
140846 7590
John D. Henkhaus
7052 Santa Teresa Blvd
#203
San Jose, CA 95139-1348
08/28/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
DICK BRIDGES
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.
LP6239-0RD-US-2_ WD045 5266
EXAMINER
MESA,JOEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2018 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):
john@henkhaus-law.com
johnd.henkhaus@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DICK BRIDGES
Appeal2018-003102
Application 13/925,769
Technology Center 2400
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, WSTIN BUSCH, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-14, 16, and 17, which constitute all
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's invention is generally directed to cross-platform
frameworks for embedded systems and, more specifically, a plug-in style
architecture to be used with embedded systems, such as network attached
storage (NAS) devices, providing a standardized structure for modules
Appeal 2018-003102
Application 13/925,769
implementing the embedded systems' functions. Spec. ,r 22. Claims 1, 7,
and 12 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An embedded device configured to provide web services,
said embedded device comprising:
a network attached storage (NAS) device, the network
attached storage device comprising:
a controller; and
physical data storage media, the physical data
storage media being coupled to the controller, the physical
data storage media being configured to store program code
that, when executed by the controller, is configured to
implement:
an application framework providing a set of
libraries, the set of libraries being configured to
provide access to services of an operating system
running on the embedded device;
a web server coupled to the application
framework via an application programming
interface; and
a set of plugins providing web services via
application
programming interfaces to the application
framework and the web server, at least one of the
plugins being configured to provide a block storage
service, over a computer network, to a client of the
NAS device, the block storage service being
configured to virtualize storage space on the
physical data storage media and at least one of the
application programming interfaces being
configured to provision the virtualized storage
space on the physical data storage media based on a
set of requirements received from another device.
2
Appeal 2018-003102
Application 13/925,769
REJECTIONS 1
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious in view ofGunduc (US 2004/0153558 Al; Aug. 5, 2004) and
Sivasubramanian (US 8,688,660 Bl; Apr. 1, 2014). Final Act. 4--11.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Gunduc, Sivasubramanian, and Li (US 2009/0271505 Al; Oct. 29, 2009).
Final Act. 11.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Gunduc, Sivasubramanian, and Balani (US 2011/0307523 Al; Dec. 15,
2011). Final Act. 11-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments Appellant made.
Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs,
are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant argues
claims 1, 7, and 12 as a group. App. Br. 12-16. We select claim 1 as
representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds the combination of Gunduc and Sivasubramanian
teaches or suggests every limitation recited in claims 1, 3-10, 12-14, and 17.
Final Act. 4--11. The Examiner finds Li and Balani respectively teach the
additionally recited limitations in claims 11 and 16, which depend from
claims 7 and 12, respectively. Final Act. 11-12.
1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1 and 3---6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Ans. 2. Accordingly, that rejection is not before us.
3
Appeal 2018-003102
Application 13/925,769
Of particular note, the Examiner finds Sivasubramanian discloses
block storage service and virtualized storage space and receiving
requirements from a database or data structures, which the Examiner finds
teaches or suggests claim 1 's limitations relating to a network attached
storage (NAS) device. Final Act. 5---6. The Examiner finds the combination
of Gunduc and Sivasubramanian teaches or suggests the recited libraries that
provide access to services of an operating system (OS) running on the
claimed embedded device. Final Act. 4---6 (citing Gunduc ,r,r 14, 21, 58;
Sivasubramanian 6:59-7:10); Ans. 2-3 (explaining that the rejection
depends on the combination of Gunduc and Sivasubramanian).
More specifically, the Examiner finds Sivasubramanian teaches or
suggests the recited NAS device because it discloses implementing or
configuring virtual storage as a virtualized NAS (vNAS). Final Act. 6
(citing Sivasubramanian 6:59-7:10); Ans. 3--4 (finding a person of ordinary
skill would understand a vNAS to be one type ofNAS and
Sivasubramanian's disclosure of a vNAS would sufficiently teach the
claimed functionality of a NAS). The Examiner finds Sivasubramanian' s
disclosure of receiving requirements from a database or other data structure
teaches or suggests the recited limitation of provisioning virtualized storage
space "based on a set of requirements received from another device." Final
Act. 6; Ans. 4.
Appellant argues Sivasubramanian fails to teach or suggest claim 1 's
embedded device comprising "a network attached storage (NAS) device."
App. Br. 12-15. Appellant contends there is a difference between the
recited "true NAS device" and Sivasubramanian's virtual NAS device,
which is simply virtual storage emulating a NAS device. App. Br. 12-13;
4
Appeal 2018-003102
Application 13/925,769
Reply Br. 2. Appellant contends both a vNAS and NAS may be types of
"storage attached to and accessible from a network," but a vNAS is not a
type ( or species) of a NAS device. Reply Br. 2.
Regardless of whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the difference between a vNAS and an "actual NAS," Appellant
fails to persuasively explain why Sivasubramanian's vNAS device does not
at least suggest a NAS device. More specifically, Appellant fails to explain
why Sivasubramanian's vNAS device fails to teach or suggest the relevant
aspects of the claimed NAS. Appellant describes configurations and
limitations of conventional embedded devices and NAS devices, but fails to
persuasively argue that such aspects are claimed in a way that renders the
subject matter non-obvious in light of the Examiner's proposed combination.
Appellant further asserts Sivasubramanian fails to teach or suggest
provisioning virtualized storage space "based on a set of requirements
received from another device," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13; Reply
Br. 2-3. Appellant acknowledges that databases and their management
systems "need to reside on a computing device to be useful," but argues
Sivasubramanian' s databases do not teach "another device" because "a
database itself is clearly not a device." Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellant that a database or data structure is not, itself,
a device. Nevertheless, as Appellant acknowledges, databases must reside
on devices in order to be useful. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood that databases may be local or remote.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that a disclosure of receiving
requirements from a database at least suggests "a set of requirements
received from another device."
5
Appeal 2018-003102
Application 13/925,769
Appellant includes one sentence asserting Gunduc' s passages the
Examiner cites as teaching "providing access to services of an operating
system running on the embedded device" "do not seem to teach or suggest
the providing access to services of any device operating system (OS) and
certainly not to services of a NAS device OS." App. Br. 14--15. To the
extent Appellant argues Gunduc fails to teach this limitation, we are not
persuaded.
Appellant's mere statement that Gunduc "do[ es] not seem to teach or
suggest" providing access to any device OS's services, let alone services of a
NAS device OS provides insufficient detail to apprise us of Examiner error.
See App. Br. 14--15. To the extent Appellant asserts Gunduc alone does not
teach aspects relating to a NAS device, the Examiner finds Sivasubramanian
teaches the aspects of claim 1 related to a NAS device. Accordingly, the
Examiner's rejection relies on the combination of Sivasubramanian and
Gunduc for teaching the entirety of the limitation. Furthermore, we note
claim 1 merely requires code configured to implement a framework
providing "access to services of an operating system running on the
embedded device," without further limiting the types of services.
Appellant's argument is insufficient to persuade us that the services to which
the Examiner's proposed combination of Gunduc and Sivasubramanian
provides access fail to teach or suggest the recited services of an operating
system running on the embedded device.
For the above reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner
erred in rejecting representative claim 1, and grouped claims 7 and 12, as
obvious in view of Gunduc and Sivasubramanian. Appellant does not argue
dependent claims 3---6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 separately with particularity.
6
Appeal 2018-003102
Application 13/925,769
See App. Br. 16. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we
sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 3---6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, and 17.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-14, 16, and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7