Ex Parte Mukherjee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

11963473 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111963,473 12/21/2007
81744 7590
Cooper Legal Group LLC
6505 Rockside Road
Suite 330
Independence, OH 44131
05/03/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sandeep Mukherjee
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.
67272-8194.USOl 1057
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THU N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
docketing@cooperlegalgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANDEEP MUKHERJEE
Appeal2014-005798
Application 11/963,473
Technology Center 2100
Before NATHAN A. ENGELS, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-32. No other claims are pending. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-005798
Application 11/963,473
APPELLANT'S fNVENTION
Appellant's invention is related to data recovery, and more
specifically, "[t]he rejected independent claims are generally directed to
selective extraction of information from an image file." Br. 3. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of obtaining information from an image file, the
method comprising:
reading, from the image file, file system information
including virtual block identifiers of data blocks in the image file,
wherein the image file is a persistent point-in-time image (PPTI);
based on said reading, creating an index file responsive to
receiving a request to obtain selected information from the image
file, wherein the index file represents a mapping of the virtual
block identifiers of data blocks in the image file to corresponding
file block numbers (FBN s ), each of said FBN s representing a
logical location of a corresponding data block within the image
file relative to other data blocks in the image file; and
using the index file to locate the selected information in
the image file and to restore the selected information from the
image file, on a storage apparatus, without having to restore the
entire image file.
APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in asserting the following
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
(i) claims 1-32 in view of Krishnamurthy et al. (US 7,631,159 Bl;
Dec. 8, 2009); Yamasaki (US 2006/0155775 Al; July 13, 2006); and Ukai
(US 5,983,324; Nov. 9, 1999);
(ii) claims 4, 5, 8-13, 15, and 16 in view of Krishnamurthy,
Yamasaki, Ukai, and Federwisch (US 6,993,539 B2; Jan. 31, 2006);
2
Appeal2014-005798
Application 11/963,473
(iii) claims 17, 18, 20-22, 24, and 25 in view of Yamasaki, Brockway
(US 2010/0100528 Al; Apr. 22, 2010), and Shitomi (US 2009/0043828 Al;
Feb. 12, 2009);
(iv) claims 19 and 23 in view of Yamasaki, Brockway, and
F ederwisch; and
(v) claims 26-29, 31, and 32 in view of Yamasaki, Brockway, and
Suponau (US 2009/0125701 Al; May 14, 2009).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. We find Appellant's arguments
persuasive and address certain of the dispositive issues as follows.
Among other limitations, claim 1 recites (a) "reading, from the image
file, file system information including virtual block identifiers of data blocks
in the image file" and (b) "based on said reading, creating an index file
responsive to receiving a request to obtain selected information from the
image file, wherein the index file represents a mapping of the virtual block
identifiers of data blocks in the image file to corresponding file block
numbers (FBNs)." Independent claim 17 similarly requires reading virtual
block numbers ("VBN s") in response to receiving a request to obtain
selected information from a mirrored image file and writing disk locations of
the VBNs to an index file. Br. 18. Independent claim 21 claims an
apparatus that includes a reader thread for reading VBN s responsive to a
request to obtain selected information from a mirrored image file and a
writer thread for writing FBNs to an index file. Br. 19. Independent claim
26 recites a method that includes reading VBN s from chunk headers in a
3
Appeal2014-005798
Application 11/963,473
mirrored image file and creating, based on the VBNs, an index that
represents a mapping of the VBNs to corresponding FBNs. Br. 20.
The Examiner finds Krishnamurthy teaches creating an index file as
claimed with its disclosure of a continuous data protection ("CDP") system
that creates an index entry each time a write transaction includes new data to
be written to an image file. See Ans. 3 (citing Krishnamurthy Fig. 2, col. 4,
11. 39--67). Further, the Examiner finds Yamasaki teaches reading, from an
image file, virtual block identifiers of data blocks in the image file. Final
Act. 5 (citing Yamasaki i-fi-158, 63, 64, 73, 76, 78); Ans. 4 (citing Yamasaki
Fig. 6, i1 63); but see Final Act. 9--11, 15 ("Yamasaki does not explicitly
disclose reading, from chunk headers in a mirrored image file ... volume
block numbers"; citing Brockway for the "reading" step of claim 26). The
Examiner also cites Brockway as a disclosure of reading virtual block
numbers in chunk headers in a mirrored image file. See Final Act. 9--11, 15.
Further, the Examiner states that it would have been obvious to combine
various combinations of references "in order to reduce a search time for
users" (Final Act. 5), "to provide the organization of information on [a]
storage disk" (Final Act. 7), or "in order to provide the organization and
protection [of] information on [a] storage disk" (Final Act. 10-13, 15)
As Appellant argues (Br. 7-8), though, Krishnamurthy teaches
creating the purported index entries in response to receiving a write
transaction, not responsive to a request to obtain selected data from an image
file, as claimed. See, e.g., Krishnamurthy col. 4, 11. 50-55 ("In response to
receiving the write transaction, CDP system 20 may store a copy of the new
data Din an entry of journal 60 ... [and] CDP system 20 may create a new
index entry each time new data Dis written to journal 60"). Further, the
4
Appeal2014-005798
Application 11/963,473
cited virtual block numbers in Yamasaki are included in a read/write
command and used to identify data missing from a cache; Yamasaki does
not teach virtual block identifiers that are read from the cache or from an
image file. See Yamasaki i-f 67 ("the iSCSI target processing program 112
receives a read/write instruction, which contains a virtual volume number
and a virtual block number, from the iSCSI host 102"). Similarly, Brockway
teaches chunk headers comprised of various information, but the Examiner
has failed to adequately explain how Brockway teaches reading VBN s from
chunk headers in an image file. See Final Act. 9-11, 15. We also agree with
Appellant the Examiner failed to provide reasoning and rational
underpinnings to support the cited combinations of references.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant the Examiner erred in the
rejections of independent claims 1, 17, 21, and 26, as well as the respective
dependent claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections
of claims 1-32.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-32.
REVERSED
5