Ex Parte Hughes

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2012

11202697 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 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. 11/202,697 08/12/2005 David Anthony Hughes PA3147US 8987 22830 7590 09/17/2012 CARR & FERRELL LLP 120 CONSTITUTION DRIVE MENLO PARK, CA 94025 EXAMINER AYASH, MARWAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2185 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/17/2012 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 2010-003954 Application 11/202,697 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and GLENN J. PERRY, Administrative Patent Judges. PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003954 Application 11/202,697 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The application now before us is the parent of U.S. Continuation Application 11/240,110 for which we decided Appeal No. 2010-003830. Appellant seeks our review 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection 2 of claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17-26, 29 and 31-34. Claims 2, 13-14, 16, 27-28, and 30 have been cancelled. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Invention Appellant’s invention relates to network memory and network memory architecture (Spec. par. [0001]) that address the problem of limited network bandwidth between central and branch offices (Spec. par. [0005]). A network memory “appliance” at a “source-site” intercepts data to be transferred over the network and bound for a “destination-site.” It determines whether the en-route data are locally available to the destination. If so, it stops the data transmission. In place of the actual data, it issues an “instruction” that causes a “destination-site” network memory appliance to obtain the locally available data and provide them to a “destination-site computer,” thereby relieving the network of transferring data. See spec. par. [0017]. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized. 1 Notice of Appeal filed May 5, 2009 2 Final Office Action mailed January 12, 2009 3 “The Status of the Claims” at page 4 of the Appeal Brief incorrectly lists the cancelled claims as “2, 13-14, and 27-28.” See “Claims Appendix”. We view this as harmless error. Appeal 2010-003954 Application 11/202,697 3 1. A network memory system 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; and 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; wherein the source-site appliance configured to identify locally accessible data of the destination-site appliance, to intercept transmitted data sent from the source-site computer and directed to the destination site computer, to perform a determination of whether a portion of the transmitted data corresponds to the locally accessible data of the destination-site appliance, to generate an instruction based on the determination, and to send the instruction to the destination-site appliance over the wide area network; and wherein the destination-site appliance configured to receive the instruction from the source-site appliance over the wide area network, to process the instruction to obtain the transmitted data locally if the transmitted data corresponds to the locally accessible data of the destination- site appliance, and to transfer the transmitted data to the destination-site computer. 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 The Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17-26, 29 and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang and Straube. Ans. 4. Appeal 2010-003954 Application 11/202,697 4 I. 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. Br. 14-23. Appellant also argues that the combination of Chang and Straube does not teach or make obvious a destination appliance configured to receive an instruction and process the instruction to obtain the transmitted data locally. Br. 24-26. Examiner Findings 4 The Examiner finds that the disputed limitation encompasses the logic elements shown in Chang figure 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 paragraphs [0009] and [0016]. 4 The Examiner’s “objections” are not appealable but petitionable to the Director. See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403 (CCPA 1971). Appeal 2010-003954 Application 11/202,697 5 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. The Examiner reasons that system 200 includes several “logic” elements (e.g. 210, 225, 230, and 240). According to paragraphs [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. Ans. 3. 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 paragraphs [0009] and [0016] of Chang) on its way from a source server/node to other destination servers/nodes. Ans. 4-6. Appeal 2010-003954 Application 11/202,697 6 The Examiner interprets the word “intercept” in accordance with the plain-English definition of the verb “(to) intercept” to mean the stopping or catching of an object (data in the instant case) on its way from one place to another. The Examiner attached a dictionary definition to an office action. Accordingly, the Examiner found that data object 205 (Chang Figure 2) is caught/stopped and analyzed/ processed by several functional units (210, 225, 230, 235) as it makes its way from a source server/node to a destination server/node. Ans. 9. Analysis We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim term “intercept.” Data cannot be “intercepted” and a portion of it compared with what is available at the intended destination site unless that which is intercepted and used for comparison was already in the course of transmission. We disagree, however, that the limitation at issue involving data intercept is met by Chang. Appellant argues 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. Br. 14. According to Appellant, Chang discloses a clustered processing system in which replication logic controls replication of objects to one or more replica states. Br. 16. Chang Figure 1, reproduced below, shows an example system diagram of one embodiment of a clustered system having a replication system in accordance with the Chang invention. . Appeal 2010-003954 Application 11/202,697 7 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. 16 citing to Chang, Abstract. Chang indicates that "a cluster is a group of independent servers or nodes 105 that collaborate as a single system." App. Br. 16 citing to 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 Appeal 2010-003954 Application 11/202,697 8 maintain “replica states” of objects. See Chang figure 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. 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. 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 pars. [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. 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 instructions. Ans. 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. 5. Appeal 2010-003954 Application 11/202,697 9 We agree with the position of Appellant on 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. See App. Br. 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. In view of the corresponding limitations in independent claims 15 and 29, we likewise do not sustain the rejection of those claims and their respective dependent claims. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17-26, 29 and 31-34 under § 103. Appeal 2010-003954 Application 11/202,697 10 ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17-26, 29 and 31-34 is reversed. REVERSED ak