Ex Parte Efstathopoulos

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

12554574 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/554,574 0910412009 Petros Efstathopoulos
86942 7590 05/02/2016
Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert, Goetzel/Symantec
P.O. Box 398
Austin, TX 78767-0398
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.
7033-34600 8809
EXAMINER
LOONAN, ERIC T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2131
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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETROS EFSTATHOPOULOS
Appeal2014-005012
Application 12/554,574
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, and 19-24, which are all the
pending claims in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Symantec Corp. (Br. 2).
2 Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 have been canceled.
Appeal2014-005012
Application 12/554,574
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention relates to accessing data stored by a computer
system that deduplicates data (Spec. i-f 1 ). Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and reads as follows:
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium
comprising program instructions for processing disk access
requests on a backup server, wherein the program instructions
are executable by a processor to:
receive a first plurality of disk access requests, wherein
the backup server is coupled to a storage device which stores a
first plurality of data items, wherein at least a portion of each
data item in the first plurality of data items is stored using a
reference to a comparable portion of a stored data item, wherein
one or more of the first plurality of disk access requests are
application programming interface (API) disk access requests
received through an API;
generate a second plurality of disk access requests based
on the first plurality of disk access requests, wherein generating
the second plurality of disk access requests comprises
translating one or more of the first plurality of disk access
requests from API disk access requests into lower level disk
access requests, wherein the lower level disk access requests
comprise physical location information for data corresponding
to the lower level disk access requests, wherein at least one disk
access request of the second plurality of disk access requests
references one of the first plurality of data items stored;
obtain, for each of at least two disk access requests in the
second plurality of disk access requests, data storage location
information associated with a corresponding data item stored on
the disk;
2
Appeal2014-005012
Application 12/554,574
determine an execution sequence for the second plurality
of disk access requests based on the data storage location
information;
determine that a number of disk access requests in the
second plurality of disk access requests satisfies a first
threshold, wherein the first threshold comprises a plural number
of disk access requests; and
issue the second plurality of disk access requests to a
privileged software component executing on the backup server
in the execution sequence, wherein the second plurality of disk
access requests are issued in response to determining that the
number of disk access requests in the second plurality of disk
access requests satisfies the first threshold.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, and 19-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hoskins (US 6,892,250 B2; May 10, 2005)
and Lillibridge (US 2010/0281077 Al; Nov. 4, 2010) (see Final Act. 3-14).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellant's
conclusions.
Independent Claim 1
First Issue -AP! software interface
The Examiner finds Hoskins' disc drive command nodes, received
through an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) interface, teach a
"first plurality of disk access requests are application programming interface
(API) disk access requests received through an API," as recited in claim 1
(Final Act. 4; Ans. 3--4 (citing Hoskins col. 4, 1. 66 - col. 5, 1. 14; col. 7, 11.
3
Appeal2014-005012
Application 12/554,574
24--27)). Appellant contends Hoskins' ASIC, which is a hardware device
that facilitates communication between hardware devices, is not the claimed
API software interface because the ordinary meaning of "application
programming interface" is a "software interface protocol for facilitating
communication between software components" (Br. 9-10).
Appellant's contentions have not persuaded us of Examiner error. We
agree with the Examiner's finding that the broadest reasonable interpretation
of "application programming interface" that is consistent with Appellant's
disclosure does not limit the claim feature to a "software interface protocol
for facilitating communication between software components," but can
include both the ASIC hardware and the programming that is used to
retrieve data from the hard drive (Ans. 3--4; see also Hoskins col. 5, 11. 34--
36; col. 3, 1. 56 - col. 4, 1. 6: a queue processor executes the command
nodes via software routines/modules and digital logic) (see In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
We observe that Appellant has not provided any rebuttal in a Reply
Brief to the Examiner's findings in response to Appellant's arguments
regarding Hoskins' ASIC and software programming.
Second Issue - Translating Commands
Appellant contends Hoskins does not teach "translating one or more
of the first plurality of disk access requests from API disk access
requests into lower level disk access requests, wherein the lower level
disk access requests comprise physical location information" (Br. 10-
11 ). Specifically, Appellant argues Hoskins' rearranging of command node
pointers within the queue does not teach translating commands from one
format (i.e., API requests) to another format (i.e., lower level disk access
4
Appeal2014-005012
Application 12/554,574
requests with physical location information) (id.). The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "translating" disk
access requests, which is consistent with Appellant's disclosure, includes
moving and rearranging the command node pointers' location between the
queues (Ans. 4--5 (citing Hoskins col. 7, 11. 30-45: pointers may be used to
redefine a command node's location within a particular queue)) (see Morris,
supra). The Examiner further finds the rearranged (i.e., translated) disk
requests include physical cylinder/sector location information (Final Act. 4--
5; Ans. 4--5 (citing Hoskins col. 6, 11. 20-22 and Fig. 4).
Third Issue - Threshold
Appellant argues Hoskins does not teach a threshold for issuing
commands after a certain plural number of commands have been
accumulated, therefore Hoskins does not teach a "second plurality of disk
access requests satisfies a first threshold" (Br. 11-12). We are not
persuaded of error by Appellant; s contentions, and agree with the
Examiner's finding that Hoskins' threshold for executing disk access
commands is in form of two commands: the ready queue is delayed until
two commands are present, and the active queue then executes the two
commands simultaneously to control two different disk actuators (Final Act.
5; Ans. 5---6 (citing Hoskins col. 10, 1. 47 - col. 11, 1. 2; see also Hoskins col.
11, 11. 3-11)).
Fourth Issue - Backup Server
Appellant contends Hoskins does not teach the second plurality of
disk access requests are issued "to a privileged software component
executing on the backup server," because Hoskins' commands are
executed on a hard disc drive, which is distinct from a backup server (Br.
5
Appeal2014-005012
Application 12/554,574
11-12). We agree with the Examiner's finding that Hoskins' hard drive is
capable of being used as a backup server, and therefore meets the disputed
limitation of claim 1. We further find that a skilled artisan would recognize
a primary purpose of the hard drive system of Hoskins and Lillibridge, as
combined by the Examiner, is for data backup on a backup server (see
Lillibridge i-f 3: data is copied to backup storage systems to protect the
integrity of the data in case of failures or faults). Thus, we are not persuaded
of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, in the absence of sufficient rebuttal evidence or argument
to persuade us otherwise, in light of the discussion above, we find no error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Dependent Claim 21
Appellant contends Hoskins does not teach "data items stored on
two or more storage devices," because Hoskins' hard drive with multiple
discs is still a single storage device, not different hard disks forming
different hard disk drivers (Br. 13). We are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in finding Hoskins teaches storing data items on two or more storage
devices, because Appellant's argument is not commensurate with the scope
of claim 21, which does not require different hard disks or different hard
disk drivers. We agree with the Examiner's finding that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of "two or more storage devices" that is consistent
with Appellant's disclosure includes a hard drive having multiple storage
6
Appeal2014-005012
Application 12/554,574
discs (Final Act. 13; Ans. 7 (citing Hoskins col. 4, 11. 14--16)) (see Morris,
supra).
Dependent Claim 22
Appellant argues Lillibridge does not teach "an indexing manager
software component" and "a restoration manager software component," as
recited in claim 22 (Br. 12-13). Acknowledging the cited portions of
Lillibridge teach a data store code module that performs data deduplication,
Appellant contends the reference does not teach an index manager or a
restoration manager. We are not persuaded of Examiner error by
Appellant's contention. The Examiner finds, and we agree that similar to
Appellant's indexing system (see Spec i-f 30), Lillibridge assigns retrieval
identifiers for duplicate chunks of data to perform deduplication (Ans. 6
(citing Lillibridge Fig. 3; see also i-f 38), and therefore teaches the claimed
"index manager." We further agree with the Examiner's finding that
Lillibridge teaches a "restoration manager'' by using the retrieval identifiers
to retrieve data from the disk drive (Ans. 6), which can be used to restore
data from backup storage in the event of a failure as discussed supra.
Dependent Claim 24
Appellant argues Hoskins' disk drive that outputs data to a host
computer does not teach "call-back functions" for "returning disk access
request responses to components from which the ... requests are
received," because the data is returned to a single component (i.e., the host
computer) and not a plurality of components, as recited in claim 24 (Br. 14).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant's contention. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that it is well-known for a host computer to
comprise multiple components and cables through which data is transferred
7
Appeal2014-005012
Application 12/554,574
(Ans. 7-8.), and therefore Hoskins' host computer teaches the claimed
plurality of "components."
CONCLUSION
As discussed herein, Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Hoskins and
Lillibridge teaches the disputed limitations of claims 1, 21, 22, and 24;
claims 8 and 15 which are argued on the same basis as claim 1 (Br. 12);
claims 6, 13, 20, and 23 which are argued on the same basis as claim 22 (Br.
12-13); and the remaining claims which are not argued separately.
Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-9,
12-16, and 19-24.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, and
19-24 is affirmed.
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
8