Ex Parte Madathilparambil George et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2012

11514807 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/514,807 09/05/2006 George Madathilparambil George 8007
67489 7590 01/04/2013
GEORGE MADATHILPARAMBIL GEORGE
211, EMBASSY HABITAT, NO. 59 PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE, 560052
INDIA
EXAMINER
ELMORE, REBA I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2189
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2013 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 GEORGE MADATHILPARAMBIL GEORGE and
NIKHIL GEORGE
____________

Appeal 2010-007614
Application 11/514,807
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before DALE M. SHAW, Division 2 Support Administrator.
ERRATUM
The Decision on Appeal for the above identified application mailed on
December 24, 2012 contains two typographical errors. On page 2, after the
first paragraph, the next sentence, “We AFFIRM-IN-PART” should be “We
Affirm”. On page 9, after the second paragraph, the next sentence,
“AFFIRMED-IN-PART” should be “Affirmed”. All other portions of this
Decision on Appeal remain unchanged. Any timelines established by the
original decision mailed December 24, 2012 also remain unchanged. If
there are any questions pertaining to this erratum, please contact the Board
of Patent Appeals and Interferences at 571-272-9797.

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.
11/514,807 09/05/2006 George Madathilparambil George 8007
67489 7590 12/24/2012
GEORGE MADATHILPARAMBIL GEORGE
211, EMBASSY HABITAT, NO. 59 PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE, 560052
INDIA
EXAMINER
ELMORE, REBA I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2189
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/24/2012 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 GEORGE MADATHILPARAMBIL GEORGE and
NIKHIL GEORGE
_____________

Appeal 2010-007614
Application 11/514,807
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, BRYAN F. MOORE, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007614
Application 11/514,807

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 43-52. App. Br. 2. Claims 1-42 are cancelled. Id.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to controlling access for users to
portions of mass memories such as hard disks, storage arrays, JBODs
(Just a Bunch of Disks), RAID storage or future technologies for mass
memories. See Spec. [0001].
Claims 43 and 51 are representative of the invention and
reproduced below:
43. An apparatus implemented in hardware which is
used for implementing access protection for users of a
computer, the said apparatus comprising:
(a) a mechanism to support one or more users;
(b) a mechanism to support two or more states for each
supported user;
(c) a mechanism to accept manual action from a user to
change the state of the said apparatus corresponding to the said
user;
(d) a mechanism which allows a device driver of the said
apparatus executing in the said computer to get the identifier of
a user who has performed a manual action to change the state of
the said user;
(e) a mechanism to accept a command from a device
driver of the said apparatus to change the state of the said
apparatus corresponding to a user; and
(f) a mechanism for changing the state corresponding to
the said user to the state requested by the said user by
performing manual action.
Appeal 2010-007614
Application 11/514,807

3

51. A method for associating a user identifier with a
read or write request to read from or write to one or more mass
memories, wherein the said user identifier in the said
association is used for implementing access protection, said
method comprising:
(a) either the operating system tagging each raw disk read
or write request with the said user identifier of the user issuing
the said raw disk read or write request, wherein a raw disk read
or write request is used to bypass caching of data written to or
read from mass memories;
(b) or by file systems tagging the said read or write
requests with the identifier of the current user of the buffer in
the file system buffer cache, wherein a file system buffer cache
is used for caching data read from or written to or to be written
to mass memories.

REFERENCES
MacWilliams US 6,112,016 Aug.29, 2000
Wambach US 6,330,648 B1 Dec. 11, 2001

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 43-48 and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Wambach. Ans. 4-7.
Claims 51 and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by MacWilliams. Ans. 7-8.
Claim 49 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wambach and MacWilliams. Ans. 8-9.

Appeal 2010-007614
Application 11/514,807

4
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err finding that Wambach discloses various
limitations in claim 43?;
2. Did the Examiner err finding that MacWilliams discloses the
following limitation in claim 51 “associating a user identifier
with a read or write request to read from or write to one or more
mass memories[?]”
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) - Wambach
Claims 43- 48 and 50
Claim 43
Appellants present arguments with respect to claim 43, 44, 50, 51, and
52. As to Claim 43, Appellants argue that:
If ‘drive ready’ (DRDY of FIG. 4 and FIG. 5 in Wambach) is
set, the state requested by the second user is lost and vice versa.
Therefore, it is impossible to ‘change the state 'corresponding to
a user' to the state requested by the user by performing manual
action’ (claim 43 (f) ).
App. Br. 11. We are not persuaded by this argument.
Claim 43 recites “a mechanism to support one or more users” and “a
mechanism for changing the state corresponding to the said user to the state
requested by the said user by performing manual action.” Therefore, claim
43 does not require a second user nor does the claim require the changing of
a state associated with a first user to a state associated with a second user.
Thus, Appellants argument is not commensurate with the scope of the
claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Appeal 2010-007614
Application 11/514,807

5
Appellants also argue that “an apparatus according to Wambach
cannot support two or more user states for each supported user (claim
43(b)).” App. Br. 14. This argument is essentially the same as the argument
above. Claim 43 requires “a mechanism to support two or more states for
each supported user.” Since claim 43 only required one user, as noted
above, the “each supported user” limitation includes the case where there is
only one supported user. Wambach discloses a drive ready status in Figures
4 and 5. Since that status could be set or not set for one user, Wambach
teaches two states for the one supported user. Thus, Appellants argument is
not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Claim 43 recites “a mechanism which allows a device driver of the
said apparatus executing in the said computer to get the identifier of a user
who has performed a manual action to change the state of the said user.”
Appellants also argue “Wambach does not comprise of any mechanism to
allow a computer to read identifier of the user who performed the manual
action.” App. Br. 16-17. Appellants argue that, because Wambach teaches
that a keyboard, which is allegedly not part of the Wambach invention, must
be used to enter a secure ID code before the button can be used to disable the
write protect function, Wambach does not teach a mechanism to allow a
computer to identify who performed the manual action. App. Br. 16. We
are not persuaded by this argument. Again, because the claims allow for one
supported user, when a user uses to button to disable the write protect
function, the user has been “identified” for purpose of the claim.
Additionally, the use of a keyboard to enter an ID is described as optional.
Wambach, 5:11-14.
Appeal 2010-007614
Application 11/514,807

6
Claim 43 recites “a mechanism to accept a command from a device
driver of the said apparatus to change the state of the said apparatus
corresponding to a user.” Appellants argue “Wambach does not comprise of
any mechanism to allow a computer to read [sic] identifier of the user who
performed the manual action.” App. Br. 19-20. We are not persuaded by
this argument. Wambach, in Figure 1, teaches a protection circuit in a drive
interface that commands a change of the status of the drive to write protected
for the one supported user. Wambach, Fig. 1, 2:4-10. Therefore, we are not
persuaded of error.
Claim 44
As to claim 44, Appellants again argue that Wambach cannot handle
two states for at least two users. App. Br. 20-23. As noted above, claim 43,
from which claim 44 depends, does not require a second user nor does the
claim require the changing of a state associated with a first user to a state
associated with a second user. Thus, Appellants argument is not
commensurate with the scope of the claims and therefore not persuasive of
error. See In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348.
Claim 50
As to claim 50, Appellants again argue that Wambach cannot handle
two states for at least two users. App. Br. 24-26. As noted above, claim 43,
from which claim 50 depends, does not require a second user nor does the
claim require the changing of a state associated with a first user to a state
associated with a second user. Thus, Appellants argument is not
Appeal 2010-007614
Application 11/514,807

7
commensurate with the scope of the claims and therefore not persuasive of
error. See In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348.
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) – MacWilliams
Claims 51-52
Appellants argue “[t]here is nothing common between what
MacWilliams teaches and the claim 51 which claims ‘associating a user
identifier to a read or write request to read from or write to mass memories
by operating system and file systems.’” App. Br. 27.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not shown that MacWilliams
discloses the above limitation. App. Br. 27. The Examiner states that users
can be equated to processors in a multi-processor environment. Ans. 14.
The Examiner further states that user identifiers are inherent in a system that
shares the cache. Id. Given, that interpretation of the claims, the Examiner
states that limitation (a) above is met by MacWilliams at col. 6 line 48 to
col. 7 line 34 and limitation (b) is met by MacWilliams at col. 12 lines 17 to
58. Ans. 7.
Appellants have not presented persuasive evidence that the
Examiner’s interpretation of the claims is inconsistent with the
Specification. Additionally, Appellants arguments do not explain why the
citations relied on by the Examiner do not show the limitations at issue.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and stated position
identifying the relevant portions of MacWilliams for disclosing the disputed
claim features (see Ans. 7, 14 and 15). On the record before us, the
Examiner satisfied the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 51.
Appeal 2010-007614
Application 11/514,807

8
Claim 52 recites “(a) serializing the accesses by different users to each
buffer in the buffer cache; and (b) writing a dirty buffer in the buffer cache
to the mass memory before the buffer is assigned to another user if modules
other than file systems implement access protection using the said tag,
wherein a dirty buffer is a buffer into which the current user has written.”
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not shown that MacWilliams
discloses the above limitations. App. Br. 30. Given the same
understandings about the definition of “users” and the inherency of “user
identifiers,” the Examiner states that limitation (a) above is met by
MacWilliams at col. 14 lines 4 to 65 and limitation (b) is met by
MacWilliams at col. 6 lines 41 to col. 7 line 42. Ans. 8. We agree with the
Examiner.
Appellants arguments do not explain why the citations relied on by
the Examiner do not show the limitations at issue. Therefore, we agree with
the Examiner’s findings and stated position identifying the relevant portions
of MacWilliams for disclosing the disputed claimed features (see Ans. 7, 8,
15 and 16). On the record before us, the Examiner satisfied the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 52.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) - Wambach and MacWilliams
Claim 49
Appellants argue dependent claim 49, which depends from claim 43,
is patentable for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 43. App.
Br. 31. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 49.
Appeal 2010-007614
Application 11/514,807

9

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 43-52 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ke