Ex Parte Haines et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

13027620 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/027,620
98068 7590
Hollingsworth Davis
8000 West 78th Street
Suite 450
02/15/2011
05/02/2016
Minneapolis, MN 55439
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jonathan Williams Haines
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.
STX.036.Ul 7165
EXAMINER
MACKALL, LARRY 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):
tdotter@hdpatlaw.com
roswood@hdpatlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN WILLIAMS HAINES and
TIMOTHY R. FELDMAN
Appeal2014-004770
Application 13/027,620
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-004770
Application 13/027,620
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-35, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Representative Claim
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a storage device, a plurality oflogical blocks
to be stored in the storage device;
determining a subset of the logical blocks that correspond
to a common object; and
storing each of the logical blocks corresponding to the
common object in a common storage unit of the storage device.
DeMoss
Walsh
Lam
Im
Tanaka
Prior Art
5,778,411
6,202, 121 B 1
5,960,464
2008/0098192 Al
2008/0201546 Al
Examiner's Rejections
July7, 1998
Mar. 13, 2001
Sept. 28, 1999
Apr. 24, 2008
Aug. 21, 2008
Claims 1, 2, 5-16, 19-22, 24--27, 29-31, and 33-35 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by DeMoss.
Claims 3, 17, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over DeMoss and Walsh.
Claims 4 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over De Moss, Walsh, and Lam.
2
Appeal2014-004770
Application 13/027,620
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over DeMoss and Im.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over De Moss and Tanaka.
Related Appeals
This appeal is related to Appeal No. 2015-000020; Serial No.
13/027,633.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the
Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-16, 19-22, 24-27, 29-31, and 33-35
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 30, and 31
Appellants contend DeMoss does not describe "determining a subset
of received logical blocks that correspond to a common object," as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 5. Specifically, Appellants argue DeMoss does not
describe "relating data by some function or content association" or
"determination (i.e., no description of 'settling or deciding by choice
between alternatives' as to virtual blocks becoming related in a virtual
cluster)." App. Br. 5---6. Appellants further argue the "functional or content
association of DeMoss' virtual blocks has not been shown to correspond to
the claimed common object." App. Br. 6.
3
Appeal2014-004770
Application 13/027,620
The Examiner finds "Deivfoss et al. disclose virtual blocks (logical
blocks) corresponding to a file (common object) and storing the file across
multiple virtual blocks of a virtual cluster (common storage unit)," and "[b ]y
determining that a set of virtual (and physical) blocks correspond to a file,
DeMoss et al. specifically disclose 'determining a subset of logical blocks
that correspond to a common object' (it is determined what virtual blocks
correspond to a file)." Ans. 3--4. We agree with the Examiner.
As cited by the Examiner, DeMoss discloses:
The virtual blocks in a virtual cluster are related by some
functional or content association meaningful to the host
computer systems such that they are frequently accessed
together. For example, portions of a stored file may be stored in
multiple virtual blocks of a virtual cluster (the entire file may
comprise multiple such virtual clusters). The methods of the
present invention logically organize physical blocks on the
storage devices into ''physical clusters" of a fixed number of
associated physical blocks.
DeMoss col. 4, 11. 2-10 (emphasis added). In other words, DeMoss
describes identifying related and associated content, frequently accessed
together, such as in a stored file, and storing the related and associated
content in virtual clusters associated with physical clusters. Appellants have
not provided persuasive evidence or argument to distinguish identification of
related and associated content, accessed together, such as a stored file, as
taught by DeMoss, from "determining a subset of the logical blocks that
correspond to a common object," as recited in claim 1.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that DeMoss
renders claim 1 unpatentable.
4
Appeal2014-004770
Application 13/027,620
• .. • .. , • 1 , .. • , • ro • .. .. , .. • -1 .... Accoramg1y, we sustam' me reJecuon or maepenaem ciam1 1, as weu
as the rejection of conm1ensurate independent claims 15 and 31, under 35
U.S.C. § 102. Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability
of dependent claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 16, 19, 20, and 30. See App. Br. 7.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 16, 19, 20, and 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Claims 7-14, 21, 22, 24-27, 29, and 33-35
Appellants summarily assert the cited art fails to disclose features of
the claims but do not present any argument in support of these assertions.
Specifically:
With respect to claims 7 and 21, Appellants merely contend "the cited
portions make no mention of retrieving, or receiving, physical locations
corresponding to a virtual cluster." App. Br. 7.
With respect to claims 8, 22, and 33, Appellants merely contend the
cited "portions make no mention of logical block addresses or of logical
block addresses being in close spatial proximity." App. Br. 8.
With respect to claim 9, Appellants merely contend the cited "portions
make no mention of receiving separate sets of logical blocks and
determining an intersection between them." App. Br. 8.
1 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should also consider
whether claims are patentable over references Flynn et al. (US
2009/0222596 Al, Sept. 3, 2009) and Im et al. (US 2008/0098192 Al, Apr.
24, 2008), cited in the rejection for the related Appeal No. 2015-000020 for
copending Application No. 13/027,633.
5
Appeal2014-004770
Application 13/027,620
With respect to claims 10, 11, 24, 25, and 34, Appellants merely
contend the cited portions do not teach or suggest "determining a subset of
logical blocks based on a sequence of logical block addresses." App. Br. 8.
With respect to claims 12, 13, 26, 27, and 35, Appellants merely
contend the "cited portions do not teach or suggest determining a subset of
logical blocks based on the claimed relationship of logical block addresses."
App. Br. 9.
With respect to claim 14, Appellants merely contend the "cited
portions do not teach or suggest the order in which virtual blocks are stored
in physical clusters." App. Br. 9.
With respect to claim 29, Appellants merely contend the "cited
portions do not teach or suggest the order in which virtual blocks are stored
in physical clusters." App. Br. 9.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) provides: "[t]he arguments shall explain
why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by
appellant." In the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, Appellants repeatedly
restate elements of the claim language and repeatedly summarily state the
elements are not disclosed by DeMoss. However, 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) also provides: "[a] statement which merely points out what
a claim recites will not be considered as argument for separate patentability
of the claim." See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e
hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to requires more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art.") Appellants fail to present sufficient arguments
showing the Examiner erred.
6
Appeal2014-004770
Application 13/027,620
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 7-14, 21, 22, 24--27,
29, and 33-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Section 103 Rejection of Claims 3, 17, and 32
Appellants do not present persuasive arguments for separate
patentability of claims 3, 17, and 32, which depend from rejected claims 1,
15, and 31. Instead, Appellants merely contend "no correspondence has
been shown between the asserted references and each of the claimed features
as required." App. Br. 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 17, and 32 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 Rejection of Claims 4 and 18
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
dependent claims 4 and 18. See App. Br. 10-11. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claims 4 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 Rejection of Claim 23
Appellants do not present persuasive arguments for separate
patentability of claim 23, which depends from rejected claims 15 and 22.
Instead, Appellants merely contend Im's teachings are "in contrast" to the
claims, and "no correspondence has been shown between the asserted
references and each of the claimed features." App. Br. 11.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
7
Appeal2014-004770
Application 13/027,620
Section j 03 Rejection of Claim 28
Appellants do not present persuasive arguments for separate
patentability of claim 28, which depends from rejected claim 15. Instead,
Appellants merely contend "no correspondence has been shown between the
asserted references and each of the claimed features." App. Br. 12.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 1, 2, 5-16,
19-22, 24--2 7, 29-31, and 3 3-3 5 is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 3, 4, 17,
18, 23, 28, and 32 are 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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8