Ex Parte Kalas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2016

14281443 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2016)

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.
40205/05602 4599
EXAMINER
KIM, TAELOR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/281,443 05/19/2014
30636 7590 11/28/2016
FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP
150 BROADWAY, SUITE 702
NEW YORK, NY 10038
Andrea KALAS
11/28/2016 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 ANDREA KALAS, SEAN VILBERT,
ERIKA MCPHERSON, and VITALIY VAYSBERG
Appeal 2016-001931
Application 14/281,443
Technology Center 2100
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-001931
Application 14/281,443
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application concerns “systems and methods for
media asset preservation.” Spec. 120. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
preparing a digital file for ingest into an asset management
system;
storing a plurality of copies of the digital file based on a
set of storage policies for the digital file;
performing a health check on an integrity of content for
each copy of the digital file; and
performing an asset repair on each copy of the digital file
that failed the health check.
REJECTION
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Brockway et al. (US 2010/0100528 Al; Apr. 22, 2010)
and Baumeister et al. (US 2001/0034786 Al; Oct. 25, 2001).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments, and we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. To the
extent consistent with the analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings,
reasoning, and conclusions set forth in the Final Rejection, Advisory Action,
and Answer. Appellants have waived arguments they failed to timely raise
or properly develop. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), 41.41(b)(2).
Appellants contend the cited art fails to teach or suggest “performing
a health check on an integrity of content for each copy of the digital file” as
2
Appeal 2016-001931
Application 14/281,443
recited in claim 1. Appellants argue performing a health check on “the
integrity of ‘content’ as recited in the claims is in no way equivalent to the
file level verification provided by traditional backup storage systems as
described in Brockway” because “content” refers to “the actual data of the
media.” Reply Br. 3^4 (citing Spec. Tflf 3, 21—22). According to Appellants,
Brockway “compares only metadata associated with the copy and the
original files without comparing the data content of these files” and “does
not require perfect copies to be made.” App. Br. 5. Appellants assert
Brockway “does not describe or suggest that the metadata includes the
content of the files themselves” and “the metadata of Brockway is not
related to the actual content of the file.” Id.', Reply Br. 4.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. Contrary to
Appellants’ arguments, the cited paragraphs of the written description do not
define “content” as “the actual data of the media.” Rather, these paragraphs
describe, at best, non-limiting examples of “file based original content” and
“original content” and restate various claim limitations. See Spec. H 3, 21—
22. Similarly, other portions of the description cited by Appellants describe
prior art preservation systems and certain aspects of the claimed invention,
but the cited portions do not explicitly define “content,” much less define the
term in the manner argued by Appellants. See id. ]Hf 25, 27—28, 54.
Moreover, claim 1 does not recite “comparing the data content of these files”
or require producing “perfect copies” of files as suggested by Appellants.
Claim 1 simply recites “producing a health check on an integrity of content
for each copy of the digital file.” Appellants’ arguments on these points are
therefore incommensurate with the scope of claim 1.
3
Appeal 2016-001931
Application 14/281,443
The Examiner concluded the disputed limitation encompasses
“preforming a check of corruption or loss of data on the integrity of data
contained in a file.” Ans. 4. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us
this construction is erroneous. As found by the Examiner, Brockway teaches
performing such a “health check.” Brockway discloses that it was well
known to “check the secondary copy [of electronic data] to ensure the
secondary content is accurate.” Brockway 115. Brockway teaches that
“[generally, the check includes steps such as analyzing each data item
copied and comparing it to the original data, fingerprint hash, or segment of
data.” Id.
Brockway also describes an improved method of verifying data that
involves comparing sets of file metadata. Id. 1 5 E Brockway teaches that
“[t]he first set of metadata and the second set of metadata may be compared
to determine whether the sets of metadata are similar, equivalent, or
otherwise indicate that the underlying data which generated the metadata
are substantially similar.'1'’ Id. (emphasis added). This approach is
consistent with the claims, which indicates that “performing a health check”
includes comparing metadata. For example, claim 5, which depends from
claim 1, recites “wherein the health check is based on a reliable digital
fingerprint for each copy of the digital file.” App. Br. 11. Indeed,
Appellants acknowledge “the exemplary embodiments describe health
checks for data in digital files utilizing some form of metadata.” Reply Br.
4. Although Appellants assert “the metadata of Brockway is not related to
the actual content of the file,” Appellants have not provided persuasive
evidence or reasoning to support this assertion. In any event, claim 1 does
not explicitly require that metadata relate to the file contents.
4
Appeal 2016-001931
Application 14/281,443
For the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that Brockway
teaches or suggests the “performing a health check” limitation at issue.
Appellants also contend that Baumeister fails to teach or suggest this
limitation and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated to combine Baumeister with Brockway. See App. Br. 7—9. Even
if we were to agree with Appellants on these points, we would not be
persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner found Brockway alone
teaches or suggests the subject matter recited in claim 1. See Ans. 4—9.
Appellants have only challenged this finding to the extent Appellants argued
Brockway does not teach or suggest the “performing a health check”
limitation, and for reasons discussed above, Appellants have not persuaded
us this conclusion is erroneous.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20.
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
5