Ex Parte Hughes

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 14, 2012

11497026 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2012)

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. 11/497,026 07/31/2006 David Anthony Hughes PA3618US 6140 22830 7590 11/14/2012 CARR & FERRELL LLP 120 CONSTITUTION DRIVE MENLO PARK, CA 94025 EXAMINER AYASH, MARWAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2185 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/14/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte DAVID ANTHONY HUGHES ________________ Appeal 2011-000353 Application 11/497,026 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and GLENN J. PERRY, Administrative Patent Judges. PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-000353 Application 11/497,026 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This application is one of three related applications: 1) Application 11/202,697; 2) Application 11/240,110 (CIP of Application 11/202,697); and 3) Application 11/497,026 (CIP of Application 11/202,697). We previously decided Appeal No. 2010-003954 for Application 11/202,697 and Appeal No. 2010-003830 for Application 11/240,110. Appellant seeks our review1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection2 of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18 and 20-27. Claims 3, 11 and 19 have been cancelled.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Invention Appellant describes the invention as relating to network memory architecture that addresses the problem of remote users having access to data which are centrally stored and managed, particularly when those data are encrypted. Spec. at ¶ [0001]. A source side appliance intercepts data sent from a source side computer to a destination side computer. The source side appliance communicates with a destination side appliance to determine whether the intercepted data can be locally accessed at the destination side. If the intercepted data are not locally accessible on the destination side, the intercepted data are transferred over the network. However, if the intercepted data are determined to be locally accessible at the destination side, the intercepted data are not sent. Instead, instructions are sent to the 1 Notice of Appeal filed March 24, 2009. 2 Final Office Action mailed December 31, 2008. 3 A response filed April 11, 2008, cancelled claims 3, 11 and 19 and added claims 25-27. Appeal 2011-000353 Application 11/497,026 3 destination side indicating locally available and the destination side locally retrieves the data, thereby relieving some bandwidth demand. See Abstract and App. Br. at 15. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized. 1. A network memory system for ensuring compliance, comprising: a source-site appliance comprising a first processor and a first memory device, and configured to be coupled to a source- site computer via a source-site local area network; a destination-site appliance comprising a second processor and a second memory device, and configured to be coupled to a destination-site computer via a destination-site local area network, the source-site computer in communication with the destination-site computer via a wide area network; the source-site appliance configured to intercept data sent from the source-site computer to the destination-site computer, encrypt the data, store the data in the first memory device, determine whether the data exists in the second memory device, and transmit a store instruction comprising the data if the data does not exist in the second memory device; and the destination-site appliance configured to receive the store instruction from the source-site appliance, store the data in the second memory device, subsequently receive a retrieve instruction comprising an index at which the data is stored in the second memory device, process the retrieve instruction to obtain encrypted response data, and decrypt the encrypted response data. Evidence Considered The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Chang US 2004/0117571 A1 June 17, 2004 Straube US 7,200,847 B2 Apr. 3, 2007 Appeal 2011-000353 Application 11/497,026 4 The Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18 and 20-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang and Straube. Ans. at 3. Examiner Findings The Examiner finds that the disputed limitations encompass the logic elements shown in Chang Fig. 2, reproduced below, in addition to externally connected processor/memory devices (not shown in Chang) that work in cooperation with those logic elements per Chang ¶¶ [0009] and [0016]. Ans. at 3-4. Chang’s Figure 2 is a diagram of a replication system 200 within a cluster node. The figure shows “in-memory object” 205 coupled to “replication logic” 210, “current object state” 215 coupled to “replication logic” 210 and “previously replicated object state” 220 coupled to “current object state” 215. “Difference logic” 225 compares outputs of “previously replicated object state” 220 and “current object state” 215. Appeal 2011-000353 Application 11/497,026 5 The Examiner reasons that system 200 includes several “logic” elements (e.g. 210, 225, 230, and 240). According to ¶¶ [0009] and [0016] of Chang, each replication system of each node may include any number of externally connected processor/memory devices that work in a cooperative capacity with the elements depicted in Chang Figure 2. The Examiner interprets Chang Figure 2 as showing that in-memory object 205 is intercepted by logic elements (possibly node-external processor/memory devices according to ¶¶ [0009] and [0016] of Chang) on its way from a source server/node to other destination servers/nodes. Ans. at 3-6. The Examiner finds that the encryption aspects of the invention are contemplated by Chang because one ordinarily skilled would understand that the encoding/decoding referred to in Chang encompass encrypting/decrypting. Ans. at 4. The Examiner finds that Straube teaches a replication facility wherein object replicas are stored in a distributed computer system and are replicated - between computers that are part of a WAN including multiple LANs - using difference data in order to reduce redundant network traffic (Straube abstract lines 19-25). Computers/nodes make use of replication facilities (analogous to the claimed appliances) which facilitate object replication and are configured to identify locally accessible data of remote nodes (Straube Fig. 3-4 and accompanying disclosures), issue instructions or commands during the course of replication, generate difference data, and transmit instructions/data over any combination of LAN/WAN to a remote node. Furthermore, Straube teaches encryption, and by necessary extension, Appeal 2011-000353 Application 11/497,026 6 decryption in the course of network data transmission (Straube Col 8 lines 55-58). Ans. at 5-6. Appellant Contentions Appellant argues that Chang and Straube do not teach or render obvious an appliance configured to intercept data sent from a source-site computer and directed to a destination-site computer. App. Br. at 14-23. Appellant contends that Chang does not disclose a network system having an appliance configured to “intercept data sent from the source-site computer to the destination-site computer”, ”determine whether the data exists in the second memory device” and “transmit a store instruction comprising the data if the data does not exist in the second memory device” as required by claim 1. App. Br. at 15-18. Appellant further contends that Straube does not provide the teachings missing from Chang. In particular, Straube does not “intercept” data sent by a source to a destination. App. Br. at 18-23. II. ANALYSIS Claim 1 We agree with Appellant that Chang and Straube do not teach or make obvious an appliance configured to intercept data sent from a source-site computer and directed to a destination-site computer. According to Appellant, Chang discloses a clustered processing system in which replication logic controls replication of objects to one or more replica states. App. Br. 16. Chang Figure 1, reproduced below, shows Appeal 2011-000353 Application 11/497,026 7 an example system diagram of one embodiment of a clustered system having a replication system in accordance with the Chang invention. Appellant explains that Chang discloses "a clustered processing system [in which] replication logic controls replication of objects to one or more replica states.” App. Br. at 16 (citing to Chang, Abstract). Chang indicates that "a cluster is a group of independent servers or nodes 105 that Appeal 2011-000353 Application 11/497,026 8 collaborate as a single system." App. Br. at 16 (citing Chang ¶ [0020]) (Emphasis in original). "[C]luster components may include one or more processor nodes such as servers 1-n, a cluster interconnect (private network) that provides node-to-node communication, and a storage subsystem." Id. Servers such as “Server A” and “Server B” shown in Chang Figure 1 maintain “replica states” of objects. See Chang Fig.1. As Appellant notes, when a replica state is not up-to-date, "[d]ifference logic determines difference values between the current state and the previously replicated state" in a given server in the cluster. Once the difference values are determined, "[t]he differences are then transmitted to the other servers in the cluster where each will update its version of the replica state with the differences." App. Br. at 17 (citing Chang ¶¶ [0007] and [0026]). Appellant argues that because only differences are transmitted and the differences are not available at the destination, no data are being intercepted and no determination is being made as to whether data already transmitted are available at a destination-site. App. Br. at 17-18. We agree with Appellant. The disputed limitation requires more than Chang’s local replication of objects by Chang’s “replication logic 210” shown in Chang Figure 2. The Examiner finds that the replication system depicted in Chang Figure 2 comprises several 'logic' elements. According to Chang ¶¶ [0009] and [0016], each replication system of each node may comprise any number of externally connected processor/memory devices that work in cooperation with the elements depicted in Chang Figure 2. Ans. at 4. The Examiner further finds that since Chang's invention operates according to a push- model, each node must be configured to make itself aware of locally accessible data of the other nodes in order to generate useful replication Appeal 2011-000353 Application 11/497,026 9 instructions. Ans. at 4-5. The Examiner’s logic is that replication instructions are intercepted by logic elements (possibly node-external processor/memory devices) on the way to other servers/nodes, to perform a determination of whether a portion of the transmitted data corresponds to the locally accessible data at the destination-site. Ans. at 5. We agree with Appellant’s understanding of the teachings of Chang, as expressed below: "each time the in-memory object 205 is to be replicated, serializing logic [e.g., replication logic 210] serializes the data and stores the serialized form as a current object state 215." Chang, [0029]. "To determine the delta object or modified portions of the current object state 215, difference logic 225 analyzes the data between the current state 215 and the previously replicated state 220." Chang, [0031]. "The differences between the previous state 220 and current state 215 are identified and copied as a set of difference data 235 which is transmitted for replication to other nodes in the cluster" such as by communication logic 240. Id. App. Br. at 18. The stated functions or operations described in connection with Chang’s Figure 2 do not constitute interception of data sent from one node of a computer to another. Rather, difference data are determined and transmitted from one node to another. As such, there is no interception of data and no local retrieval of data intercepted. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4-8 and 25. Independent Claim 9 Our analysis applies equally to independent claim 9, which requires “intercepting data sent from a source-site computer to a destination-site Appeal 2011-000353 Application 11/497,026 10 computer.” We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 9 and its dependent claims 10, 12-16 and 26. Independent Claim 17 Our analysis applies equally to independent claim 17, in computer program product form requiring a processor to “intercept data sent from a source-site computer to a destination-site computer, encrypt the intercepting data sent from a source-site computer to a destination-site computer…” We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 17 and its dependent claims 18, 20-24 and 27. III. CONCLUSION 1. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18 and 20-27 under § 103. IV. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18 and 20-27 is reversed. REVERSED KMF