Ex Parte Grube et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2018

13372628 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2018)

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.
13/372,628 02/14/2012 GaryW. Grube CS00699/END920165743US4 6323
89322 7590 03/14/2018
Garlick & Markison (IBM)
106 E. 6th Street, Suite 900
Austin, TX 78701
EXAMINER
KEEHN, RICHARD G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2018 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):
MMURDOCK@ TEXASPATENTS .COM
bpierotti @ texaspatents .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARY W. GRUBE, TIMOTHY W. MARKISON, GREG DHUSE,
JASON K. RESCH, ILYA VOLVOVSKI, and WESLEY LEGGETTE1
Appeal 2017-009892
Application 13/372,628
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JASON J. CHUNG, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify The Real Party in Interest as International Business
Machines. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2017-009892
Application 13/372,628
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to data storage solutions within
computing systems. (See Spec. p. 1,1. 23.)
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method for data transfer from a first computing device
to a second computing device using a transfer token module
comprises:
when the first computing device is paired with the
transfer token module, wherein paired requires an electrical
connectivity and substantially close physical proximity:
sending, by the first computing device, the data to
the transfer token module;
encoding, by the transfer token module, the data
utilizing a dispersed storage error encoding function to
produce one or more sets of encoded data slices, wherein
a decode threshold number of encoded data slices of a set
of the one or more sets of encoded data slices is required
to recover a data segment of the data, wherein the decode
threshold number is less than a number of encoded data
slices within the set of the one or more sets of encoded
data slices; and
sending, by the transfer token module via the first
computing device, the one or more sets of encoded data
slices to a target destination; and
when the second computing device is paired with the
transfer token module:
retrieving, by the transfer token module via the
second computing device, the one or more sets of
encoded data slices from the target destination;
2
Appeal 2017-009892
Application 13/372,628
decoding, by the transfer token module, the one or
more sets of encoded data slices utilizing the dispersed
storage error encoding function to recapture the data; and
storing, by the second computing device, the data.
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1—29 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Au et al. (US 2007/0214285 Al; published Sept. 13,
2007), in further view of Gardner (US 2009/0154559 Al; published June 18,
2009), and Bailey et al. (US 2007/0186105 Al; published Aug. 9, 2007).
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 7—21, and the Reply Brief, pages 3—14.
Dispositive Issues: Did the Examiner err in finding that the
combination of Au, Gardner, and Bailey teaches or suggests “transfer token
module, ” and “a dispersed storage error encoding function,'1'’ as recited in
claim 1? (Emphases added.)
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
With regard to the “transfer token module,” Appellants have not
provided an explicit definition of a “transfer token module” in their
Specification. The Specification discloses:
3
Appeal 2017-009892
Application 13/372,628
The transfer token module 230 includes an interface module 30
for interfacing with one or more of the first computing device
232 and the second computing device 234, a memory 144, and
a processing module 50 operably coupled to the memory 144.
The interface module 30 includes at least one of a universal
serial bus (USB) interface module, a Bluetooth interface
module, a fire-wire interface module, a 60 GHz wireless
transceiver, and a Wi-Fi interface module.
Spec. p. 33,1. 28—p. 34,1. 2.
Thus, according to Appellants’ Specification, the transfer token
module is an interface between the first and second computing devices.
Although this disclosure is not limiting of the claimed invention, it provides
context for which the “transfer token module” is interpreted.
The Examiner provides a well-reasoned explanation, including
citations to several paragraphs and drawings of Au, which demonstrate how
Au teaches the transfer token module of claim 1 (id.). We concur with the
Examiner’s fact findings as supported by Au’s disclosure. We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Figure 4 of Au is reproduced below:
Heartbeat
Registration
Slice allocation
Checksum validation
Replication control
Diskspace stats
Load stats
DHCP
Health monitoring
Filespace slats
Load stats
Security! Quota contra!
Partitioning
Failover eonftg
DNS control
^ 7^
/ Content [.
Server J\j-
i
400
2r>:l Pcr.'ks
4
Appeal 2017-009892
Application 13/372,628
Figure 4 illustrates the data storage system (labels added for
emphasis).
As depicted above, the Examiner finds,
Au discloses the client devices (Fig 4, element 410 or Fig 2,
elements 204 and 206). Au discloses the content server that
slices and encodes communications with checksums, mapped to
the transfer token (Fig 4, element 406 or Fig 2, one of the
element 210). Au discloses the content server that received the
sliced and encoded communications with checksums, mapped
to the second computing device (Fig 4, element 408 or Fig 2,
one of the element 210 other than the transfer token). Figure 4
better illustrates the relationship between client (first computing
device) and Content server 408 (second computing device) with
the content server 406 in between (transfer token).
Ans. 22.
In other words, the Examiner equates Au’s content server 406 to the
claimed transfer token module. Id. at 23—24.
Consistent with the Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 22—24) and
based on the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants’
disclosure, including a content server is not precluded by the claim language.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With regard to the “dispersed storage error encoding function”
limitation, Appellants’ Specification does not provide any definition giving
special meaning and thereby limiting the scope of “a dispersed storage error
encoding function.” The Specification states that the “dispersed storage
error encoding function includes a set of dispersed storage error encoding
parameters unique to the transfer token module 230 (e.g., unique encryption
key, unique pillar width and decode threshold combination).” Spec. p. 34,11.
5
Appeal 2017-009892
Application 13/372,628
17—19. Therefore the phrase “a dispersed storage error encoding function”
is to be given its plain meaning unless inconsistent with the Specification.
See In reZletz, 893 F.2d319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-
Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The Examiner has found the phrase “dispersed storage error encoding
function” to encompass changing or reallocating the storage size when more
memory is required. (Ans. 11—12.) We find that this construction of the
“dispersed storage error encoding function” claim element to be both
reasonable and consistent with the Specification.2 Id. Appellants have not
presented any persuasive evidence to convince us that the Examiner’s
interpretation of “dispersed storage error encoding function” is in error.
Given the above construction, the Examiner correctly points out (Ans.
25—26) the checksums in Au explicitly teach this feature (citing to Au 146).
See also Au 147 (stating “[t]he checksum information provides validation
that the data in the slice has not been corrupted due to random hardware
errors that typically exist in all complex electronic systems.”).
Regarding the dependent claims, while Appellants raised additional
arguments for patentability of the claims, we find that the Examiner has
rebutted in the Answer each and every one of those arguments supported by
sufficient evidence. (Ans. 22—30.) Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s
findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by
2 See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404—05 (CCPA 1969); In re Am. Acad.
ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (During examination
of a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the specification.)
6
Appeal 2017-009892
Application 13/372,628
reference. Consequently, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1—29.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references
teach or suggest all the claim limitations, the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 1—29 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—29.
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