Ex Parte Jiang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13724090 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017)

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.
13/724,090 12/21/2012 Hong Jiang 67108-408 PUS 1;
812809-US
7205
46368 7590 02/02/2017
TART SON OASKFY fr OT DS P C /Alratel-T nrent EXAMINER
400 W MAPLE RD
SUITE 350
OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HONG JIANG, RAZIEL HAIMI-COHEN,
and PAUL A. WILFORD
Appeal 2016-006004
Application 13/724,090
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, THU A. DANG, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—23, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-006004
Application 13/724,090
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to “managing data,”
and more particularly, “to devices and methods for distributing data in a
cloud computing system” (Spec. 11).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A data access management system, comprising:
a plurality of data storage devices; and
at least one data manager device configured to:
segment compressive measurements of data into a
plurality of subsets, wherein each of the subsets contains
measurement information for facilitating a reconstruction of at
least an approximation of the data;
provide at least a first one of the subsets to a first one of
the data storage devices; and
provide at least a second one of the subsets to a second
one of the data storage devices;
wherein at least one of the data storage devices is
selected, based on at least one criterion, for providing a user
access to the at least one subset stored by the selected data
storage device.
C. REJECTIONS
Claims 1—14, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings of Ollikainen et al. (US 2008/0301775 Al;
pub. Dec. 4, 2008), Go et al. (US 8,442,070 Bl; issued May 14, 2013),
Gladwin et al. (US 2007/0079081 Al; pub. Apr. 5, 2007), and Young (WO
00/77637 Al; pub. Dec. 21, 2000).
2
Appeal 2016-006004
Application 13/724,090
Claims 15—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the teachings of Ollikainen, Go, and Young.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Ollikainen and Go (and Gladwin and/or Young) teaches
or suggests segmenting compressive measurements of data into a plurality of
subsets, wherein “each of the subsets contains measurement information for
facilitating a reconstruction” (claim 1, emphasis added).
III. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Ollikainen cannot be modified “into one in
which any one of the segments of the data is sufficient for reconstructing the
data without having access to all of the segments of data” because that
would “render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or in a way that
would change the principle of operation” (App. Br. 3). According to
Appellants, the Examiner’s proposal “to no longer require access to both
portions of the original data for reconstructing the original data” and instead
“add a feature making either portion sufficient for reconstructing the original
data without the other portion” would be “removing the very type of data
protection taught by the Ollikainen reference” and “would render that
arrangement unsatisfactory for its intended purpose if the proposed
modification were made” {id. at 4). That is, Ollikainen “relies upon dividing
the data into two portions and requiring access to both portions to provide
security over access to the original data” {id.), wherein “to alter the
Ollikainen teachings by making one portion of the data sufficient for
3
Appeal 2016-006004
Application 13/724,090
reconstructing the original data would remove the security feature that
Ollikainen provides by requiring both sets of data to be recombined for
reconstructing the data” (App. Br. 5).
Appellants also contend that if the Examiner instead is proposing to
leave everything about Ollikainen alone and “merely to add that one of the
data portions would be sufficient for reconstructing,” then “the Examiner’s
proposed modification provides no benefit in the context of the Ollikainen
reference” (id.). Thus, Appellants contend, “the Examiner is extracting from
the references for purposes of attempting to establish a prima facie case, then
the Examiner has not extracted enough” because “that result does not
include having each subset of compressive measurements being adequate for
reconstructing at least an approximation of the data” (App. Br. 7).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants’ contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings, and find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims
would have been obvious over the combined teachings.
As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we give the claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Although Appellants contend Ollikainen cannot be modified such that
“any one of the segments of the data is sufficient for reconstructing the data
without having access to all of the segments of data” (App. Br. 3), i.e.,
4
Appeal 2016-006004
Application 13/724,090
modified to “add a feature making either portion sufficient for reconstructing
the original data without the other portion” {id. at 4), we note that such
contention is not commensurate with the claim language. That is, the claims
do not require “any one of’ the segments to be “sufficient for reconstructing
the data without having access to all of the segments of data” or
“reconstructing the original data without the other portion” {id. at 3 4).
Thus, although Appellants contend Ollikainen “relies upon dividing the data
into two portions and requiring access to both portions to provide security
over access to the original data” {id.), nothing recited in the claims precludes
requiring access to both portions to provide security.
In fact, claim 1 does not require any “reconstructing” of data {id.).
Instead, claim 1 recites that each subset “contains measurement information
for facilitating a reconstruction of at least an approximation of the data”
(claim 1, emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner the claims merely
require that “a subset measurement information only facilitate the
reconstruction but does not necessarily unilateral[ly] reconstruct the data”
(Ans. 3). Giving the term its broadest, reasonable interpretation, we
conclude that claim 1 merely requires that each subset contains any
information that facilitates (i.e., be useful in) a reconstruction of data.
By arguing that Ollikainen cannot be modified because that would
“render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or in a way that would
change the principle of operation” (App. Br. 3—5), Appellants appear to view
the rejection in a different perspective than that of the Examiner. The issue
in this Appeal is whether the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it
obvious to include information that facilitates (i.e., is useful in) a
reconstruction of data in the data subsets of Ollikainen.
5
Appeal 2016-006004
Application 13/724,090
Here, the Examiner finds that “Ollikainen discloses a system or
method for securing a data” wherein “[t]he original data is encrypted” and
“[t]he encrypted data is divided into two portion[s]” (Ans. 2), and “the
original data is reconstructed by retrieving a portion of the data from the
remote storage and combin[ing] it with the portion stored on the local
memory” (id. at 3). We find no error with the Examiner’s finding that “[t]he
retrieved portion as disclosed by Ollikainen also assist in the reconstruction
of the original data” wherein “[t]he removed portion 618 as well as the
initialization vector 612, the encryption key 622, and the seed number 606,
which are obtained from the RMD 304, are used for restoring the original
data” (id., emphasis omitted (citing Ollikainen 198)). That is, given the
broadest reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that
Ollikainen discloses or at least suggests segmenting data, wherein
information contained in the segmented data is used to assist, i.e. “for
facilitating,” in the reconstruction/restoring of the original data (id.).
The Examiner also finds that Go, “in an analogous art discloses,
wherein each of the subsets contains measurement information for
facilitating a reconstruction” wherein Go “reconstructs the client’s packets
from the fractional packets” (Final Act. 5 (citing Go, col. 3,11. 13—16)
(emphasis omitted)). That is, we agree that Go teaches and suggests using
information in subsets to assist, i.e. facilitate, in the reconstruction of data.
Thus, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that it
would have been obvious to combine Ollikainen and Go for teaching and
suggesting segmenting subsets of data, each containing measurement
information “for facilitating” a reconstruction (claim 1).
6
Appeal 2016-006004
Application 13/724,090
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that, “merely to
add that one of the data portions would be sufficient for reconstructing,”
then “the Examiner’s proposed modification provides no benefit in the
context of the Ollikainen reference” (App. Br. 5). In particular, the claims
do not require “one of the data portions would be sufficient for
reconstructing” {id.). Nevertheless, even assuming arguendo that Appellants
are correct that the Examiner’s proposed modification “provides no benefit”
{id.), our reviewing court has guided, “just because better alternatives exist
in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for
obviousness purposes.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(citations omitted).
The Supreme Court has clearly stated the “combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007). As the Examiner points out, “[t]he modification
would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to
reconstruct data packet with limited information” (Final Act. 5). We find
the Examiner set forth sufficient “articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also 35 U.S.C. § 132.
Here, Appellants have presented no evidence that providing
information for facilitating a reconstruction would have been “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Instead, we find such a combination of
references in the same field of endeavor of data reconstruction would have
7
Appeal 2016-006004
Application 13/724,090
been well within the ordinary level of skill of the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
417. In particular, we find that Appellants’ invention is simply a
modification of familiar prior art teachings that would have realized a
predictable result to the skilled artisan. The skilled artisan is “a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2—14, 22, and 23 falling therewith (App. Br.
3) over the combination of Ollikainen, Go, Gladwin and Young.
Appellants do not provide separate substantive arguments for claims
15—21 (id. at 7—8), and thus, we also affirm the rejections of claims 15—21
over Ollikainen, Go, and Young.
We note that Appellants introduce new arguments in the Reply Brief.
However, it is inappropriate for Appellants to discuss for the first time in a
Reply Brief matters that could have been raised in the Appeal Brief.
Because Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief without
showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See 37
C.F.R. §41.41 (b)(2).
IV. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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).
AFFIRMED
8