Ex Parte Gu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 2016

11269274 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 11/269,274 98195 7590 IPR Law Group, PC 5338 Cornish Street Houston, TX 77007 FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 11108/2005 Jinsheng Gu 04/04/2016 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. DOGO.P019 6874 EXAMINER UDDIN, MDI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2016 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): rick@iprlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JINSHENG GU and PREMJITH MANAPETTY Appeal2013-006381 Application 11/269,274 Technology Center 2100 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JON M. JURGOV AN, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to static file system differencing and updating including portion-level differencing and block level updating of units of an original image. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal2013-006381 Application 11/269,274 1. A device for differencing static file system images, compnsmg: a receiver that receives images of a static file system, the images including an original image and a new image; a pre-processor that divides the original image into a plurality of original sections and divides the new image into a plurality of new sections, wherein the pre-processor divides the images into the plurality of sections based in part on one of block information and image structure of the static file system images including target device block information; a dependency generator that identifies dependency alignments between the plurality of original sections and the plurality of new sections including information as to sections of the new image that depend on sections of the original image, each dependency alignment including information as to a sequence by which new sections are to be updated during an update of the original image; and a difference engine that generates a delta file for at least one of the new sections, wherein the delta file includes differences between the at least one new sections and at least one of the original sections on which the at least one of the new sections depends. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Chiang Herle US 2004/0062130 Al US 7,529,779 B2 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Apr. 1, 2004 May 5, 2009 Provisional filed June 10,2004 Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Herle. 2 Appeal2013-006381 Application 11/269,274 Claims 3, 6-3, 15, 16, and 18-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herle in view of Chiang. ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Herle teaches the limitation of: a dependency generator that identifies dependency alignments between the plurality of original sections and the plurality of new sections including information as to sections of the new image that depend on sections of the original image, each dependency alignment including information as to a sequence by which new sections are to be updated during an update of the original image as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, and 17 Appellants argue that Herle does not disclose a dependency generator that identifies dependency alignments between the plurality of original sections and the plurality of new sections including information as to sections of the new image that depend on sections of the original image, each dependency alignment including information as to a sequence by which new sections are to be updated during an update of the original image (Br. 14). Appellants argue that Herle's segmented delta file generator cannot be the claimed dependency generator (Br. 16). Appellants further argue that the order of delta files in the composite file teaches nothing regarding a 3 Appeal2013-006381 Application 11/269,274 sequence by which new sections are to be updated during an update of the original image (Br. 18). We do not agree with Appellants' arguments. Appellants' own Specification describes the dependency alignments as follows: The SFS differencing identifies 306 dependency alignments between the original sections and the new sections. A delta file is generated 308 for at least one of the new sections. The delta file includes but is not limited to differences between a new section and one or more original section( s ), where the new section depends on the original section(s). The delta files of alternative embodiments may include differences between at least one new section and at least one original section on which the new sections depend. Spec. 7:12-18. Consistent with Appellants' Specification, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Herle teaches a segmented delta file generator 245 that identifies dependency alignments (col. 7, 11. 18-25) between the plurality of original sections (col. 7, 11. 20-22; plurality of segmented original file 235) and the plurality of new sections (col. 7, 11. 20-22; plurality of segmented binary file 235 (i.e. new file)) including information as to sections of the new image that depend on sections of the original image (col. 7, 11. 18-25, 63---66) (Ans. 3--4). We agree with the Examiner's finding that "[e]ach one of delta files 311-316 is produced from one segment of upgraded binary file 230 (i.e. new image) and one segment from original binary file 235" which implies the sections of the new image depend on sections of the original image, each dependency alignment (col. 7, 11. 18-25; delta file) including information as to a sequence (col. 7, 11. 61-64; composite delta file 250 comprises individual delta files 311-316 (i.e. sequence)) by which new sections are to 4 Appeal2013-006381 Application 11/269,274 be updated (Ans. 4). During an update of the original image (col. 7, 11. 61- 66 and col. 8, 11. 20-21; "composite delta file" which specifies the sequence to which new sections are to be updated - delta files 311 to 316 (i.e., sequentially updating)) the delta file can be applied (i.e., update) on the target mobile station (Ans. 4). We also agree with the Examiner's finding that the Herle's segmented delta file generator constitutes a dependency generator (Br. 5). As stated supra, from Appellants' own disclosure the alignment between the original images and new images are delta files, and thus, the segmented delta file generator is reasonably interpreted as a dependency generator (Ans. 5). We further agree with the Examiner's finding that Herle' s "composite delta file" specifies the sequence to which new sections are to be updated - delta files 311 to 316 (i.e., sequentially updating) (Ans. 6). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 14, and 17. Claims 3, 6--13, 15, 16, and 18-25 Appellants essentially argue that Chiang does not teach the disputed limitation as stated supra, (Br. 19-21 ). For the same reasons as stated above, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 3, 6-13, 15, 16, and 18-25. of: CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that Herle teaches the limitation a dependency generator that identifies dependency alignments between the plurality of original sections and the plurality of new sections including information as to sections of the new image that depend on sections of the original image, each dependency 5 Appeal2013-006381 Application 11/269,274 alignment including information as to a sequence by which new sections are to be updated during an update of the original image as recited in claim 1. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-25 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6