Ex Parte Jennings et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2016

13369831 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/369,831 02/09/2012
114484 7590 04/27/2016
Kacvinsky Daisak Bluni PLLC (2100)
430 Davis Drive
Suite 150
Morrisville, NC 27560
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Logan R. Jennings
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.
2100P017321 1007
EXAMINER
HICKS, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2016 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):
kddocketing@cpaglobal.com
dlanner@kdbfirm.com
docketing@kdbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LOGAN R. JENNINGS and ZI-BIN YANG
Appeal2014-007996
Application 13/369,831
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. "1"1 ,1 "1 "1 ,..,,,-TT#'l~ll"l,..,,Al/'-r'" ,"1 T"""i •., Appeuants' appeal unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrorn me bxarnmer s
rejection ofclairns 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is NetApp, Inc. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2014-007996
Application 13/369,831
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' present application relates to a data storage system with
an abstraction layer and a data layer. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal and reads as follows:
1. A method of creating a backward data object handle, the
method comprising:
receiving, from over a network, a request from a client
device to create a file;
creating a redirector file on a first logical data container in
response to receiving the request;
receiving a redirector handle resulting from the creation of
the redirector file;
creating a data object of the file on a second logical data
container using the redirector handle as an identifier of the data
object, wherein the redirector handle is a backward data object
handle, from a perspective of the client device, that points from
the data object on the second logical data container to the
redirector file on the first logical data container, wherein the
redirector file on the first logical data container is identified by
referencing the identifier of the data object stored on the second
logical data container;
receiving a forward data object handle resulting from the
creation of the data object on the second logical data container,
wherein the forward data object handle, from the perspective of
the client device, points from the redirector file to the data object;
and
encapsulating the forward data object handle into the
redirector file so that the redirector file includes the forward data
object handle.
2
Appeal2014-007996
Application 13/369,831
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Wong (US 7,072,917 B2; July 4, 2006). See Ans. 2-9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. Except as noted below, 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 the following additional
points.
Forward data object handles and Backward data object handles
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Wong discloses a
"backward data object handle, from a perspective of the client device, that
points from the data object on the second logical data container to the
redirector file on the first logical data container." See App. Br. 6-9, Reply
Br. 2-5. In particular, Appellants argue Wong's "switch file handle" does
not point from the "shadow file" (the claimed "data object") to the "holey
file" (the claimed "redirector file"). App. Br. 8. Appellants argue the
"switch file handle" identifies a directory or file object instead of the holey
file. Id. (citing Wong 5:48-64).
Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in finding Wong
discloses a "forward data object handle" that "from the perspective of the
3
Appeal2014-007996
Application 13/369,831
client device, points from the redirector file to the data object." See App. Br.
9. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner identified the same portions
of Wong to disclose both the backward data object handle and forward data
object handle. Id.
The Examiner finds Wong's "holey file" corresponds to the claimed
"redirector file" and Wong's "shadow file" corresponds to the claimed "data
object." Ans. 12. The Examiner further finds the "switch file handle"
corresponds to the "backward data object handle" that points "from the data
object to the redirector file." Ans. 13. The Examiner also finds Wong
discloses a link between the "holey file" and the "shadow file" that
corresponds to the "forward data object handle" that points "from the
redirector file to the shadow file." Id. The Examiner acknowledges that
Wong does not refer to the link between the holey file and the shadow file as
a file handle, but finds that Wong's file server "maintains associations
between the holey and shadow files" and this corresponds to the claimed file
handle. Ans. 13 (citing Wong 5:23-25, 6:56-59).
Appellants reply that the Examiner erred interpreting Wong because
holey files do not point to shadow files. Reply Br. 3. Appellants argue that
switch file handles do not necessarily point to holey files because Wong
discloses that the segregation module may request files using file handles for
both holey files and shadow files. Reply Br. 4 (citing Wong 7:23-28).
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding Wong
discloses forward and backward data object handles. As found by the
Examiner, Wong discloses creating for each new file a "holey file" (the
claimed "redirector file") in the directory file server and a "shadow file" (the
claimed "data object") in the shadow file server. See Final Act. 4 (citing
4
Appeal2014-007996
Application 13/369,831
Wong 5:10-27). The directory server maintains an association between the
holey file and the shadow file in order to reconstruct a file upon request.
Ans. 11 (citing Wong 5:23-25). This association is a "forward data object
handle" that points from a holey file to a data object to allow a user to
request a file from the NAS file server using a switch file handle, which in
tum requests a holey file, which reconstructs the file using shadow files. See
Wong 5:10-6:65, 7:23-32. When a request to create a new file is received,
the file server receives the switch file handle from the client and the holey
and shadow file handles from the segregation module. Wong 7:23-32. The
segregation module creates the shadow file name from the location of the
holey file in the directory server. Wong 7:33-54. In other words, the holey
file name is used to create the shadow file name, establishing the backward
data object handle from the shadow file to the holey file. The switch file
handle also points from to the holey file from the perspective of the client.
See Ans. 11-12.
Appellants argue the switch file handle is not a "backward data object
handle" because "switch file handles ... do not necessarily point to holey
files, nor are holey files necessary for obtaining a file handle for the shadow
file." Reply Br. 4. Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because switch file
handles do not need to be the only mechanism for identifying holey files,
and holey files do not need to be the only mechanism for obtaining shadow
file handles. Wong's disclosure of other options does not change the fact
that Wong's switch file handles are used to identify holey files.
5
Appeal2014-007996
Application 13/369,831
Encapsulating the forward data object handle
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding Wong discloses
"encapsulating the forward data object handle into the redirector file so that
the redirector file includes the forward data object handle." See App. Br.
10-12, Reply Br. 6-8. In particular, Appellants argue Wong does not
disclose the association between the holey file and the shadow file is
incorporated into the holey file such that the holey file includes the forward
data object handle. Id.
The Examiner responds that Wong discloses that the association
between the holey file and the shadow file is maintained in the directory
server, where the holey file is saved. Ans. 14. The Examiner finds this
association may be considered to be incorporated into the holey file.
Ans. 14-15.
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "encapsulating the forward data
object handle into the redirector file so that the redirector file includes the
forward data object handle." The Board "determines the scope of claims in
patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon
giving claims their broadest reasonable construction 'in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art."'
Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Jn re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In
Appellants' Specification, the term "encapsulation" is described to "include
the attachment of the forward data object handle to the redirector file or
including the forward data object handle as content of the redirector file."
Spec. ,-i 49. Wong's directory file storage corresponds to at least the first
example of encapsulation provided by the Specification. In view of
6
Appeal2014-007996
Application 13/369,831
Appellants' broad disclosure of "encapsulation," we agree with the
Examiner that Wong's directory file storage of the holey file and the
association between the holey file and the shadow file constitutes
"encapsulating the forward data object handle into the redirector handle ... "
as understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan in light of the specification.
See Ans. 15. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner
erred in finding Wong discloses the "encapsulating" limitation.
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' contentions that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Wong. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2-
21, which were not argued separately. See App. Br. 12.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7