Ex Parte Grube et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 12, 201813372628 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation