Ex Parte Periyagaram et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 201412245669 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SUBRAMANIAN PERIYAGARAM, RAHUL KHONA, DNYANESHWAR PAWAR, and SANDEEP YADAV ____________ Appeal 2012-005321 Application 12/245,669 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–10 and 13–24. Claims 11 and 12 are withdrawn (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The invention relates to a system and method for organizing data. (See Spec. ¶ 1.) Appeal 2012-005321 Application 12/245,669 2 Claims 1 and 21 are representative and are reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: dividing a set of data which is defined as a plurality of blocks into a plurality of chunks in a network storage system, wherein boundaries of the chunks are independent of boundaries of the blocks; and storing metadata of the set of data, including pointers for locating the data, in a hierarchical structure in the network storage system, the hierarchical structure including a plurality of levels, each level including at least one node; wherein a lowest level of the plurality of levels includes a plurality of nodes that each contain chunk metadata, and in each said node that contains chunk metadata, the chunk metadata identifies at least one of the chunks. 21. A network storage system comprising: means for communicating with a plurality of storage clients over a network; means for determining a plurality of anchor points for a set of data defined as a plurality of blocks; means for dividing the set of data into a plurality of chunks according to the plurality of anchor points, wherein boundaries of the chunks are independent of boundaries of the plurality of blocks; means for writing the plurality of chunks into a plurality of chunk files; means for storing metadata including block pointers of the set of data in a hierarchical structure in the network storage system, the hierarchical structure including a plurality of levels, each said level including at least one node, wherein a lowest level of the plurality of levels includes a plurality of nodes that each store chunk metadata, wherein in each said node that contains chunk metadata the chunk metadata identifies at least one chunk in the plurality chunk flies; and means for sharing a chunk, of the plurality of chunks, between two files to reduce duplication of data in said chunk, wherein each of the two files is represented by a hierarchical Appeal 2012-005321 Application 12/245,669 3 structure that includes lowest level node that includes chunk metadata identifying the shared chunk. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (Ans. 4). The Examiner rejected claims 1–10 and 13–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Kazar (US 2010/0011037 A1; published Jan. 14, 2010) (Ans. 5). ISSUES Based on Appellants’ contentions, we discuss the rejections under § 101 by reference to claim 21 and we discuss the rejections under § 102 by reference to claim 1. The issues presented by Appellants’ contentions are as follows: Did the Examiner err in finding claims 21 and 22 are directed to non- statutory subject matter? Did the Examiner err in finding Kazar discloses dividing a set of data defined as a plurality of blocks into a plurality of chunks in a network storage system, where boundaries of the chunks are independent of boundaries of the blocks, as recited in claim 1? Did the Examiner err in finding Kazar discloses a lowest level of the plurality of levels in a hierarchical structure includes a plurality of nodes that each contain chunk metadata, and in each said node that contains chunk metadata, the chunk metadata identifies at least one of the chunks, as recited in claim 1? Appeal 2012-005321 Application 12/245,669 4 ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Claim 21 is directed to “[a] network storage system comprising: means for communicating . . . .” The Examiner concludes paragraph 63 of “the specification describes said system as being merely software . . .” (Ans. 4.) Appellants contend paragraph 63 only refers to embodiments that include hardware. (App. Br. 7.) Additionally, on page 4 of the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify the “means for communicating” in claim 21 as corresponding to element 104 in Figure 10 of their Specification. Element 104 is a hardware network adapter, such as “an Ethernet adapter or Fibre Channel adapter.” (See Spec. ¶ 62.) As Appellants have identified a hardware network adapter as the “means for communicating” as recited in claim 21, we disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the system of claim 21 is “merely software.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 21 and 22 as directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.1 1 In the event of further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may wish to review all of the independent claims, including claim 21, for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the recently issued preliminary examination instructions on patent-eligible subject matter. See “Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.” Memorandum from Andrew H. Hirshfeld, USPTO, to Patent Examining Corps (June 25, 2014), available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf. Appeal 2012-005321 Application 12/245,669 5 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Kazar fails to disclose “chunks” having the characteristics recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 8– 10.) The Examiner finds at least paragraph 13 of Kazar discloses the disputed limitations. (See Ans. 5.) The Examiner concludes the portion of a file in Kazar constitutes a block of the file, i.e., the set of data. (Id.) The Examiner further concludes the first and second segments disclose a plurality of chunks. (Id.) Moreover, the Examiner also points to paragraph 30 of Kazar (Ans. 18), which describes how an interface stores each segment as a plurality of data chunks distributed among several disks. Thus, as the Examiner finds, the segments in Kazar are part of “the set of data” recited in claim 1. (See Ans. 18–19.) The Examiner also concludes the boundaries of the chunks are “independent of boundaries of the blocks,” as recited in claim 1, because the segments (chunks) exist before each portion (block) is stored into each segment. (Id.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Appellants also argue Kazar discloses no hierarchical structure in which its lowest level includes a plurality of nodes that each contain chunk metadata and for each node that contains chunk metadata, the chunk meta data identifies at least one of the chunks (Ans. 11.) We disagree. As the Examiner finds, the fields stored in each inode in Figure 12 of Kazar contain information (e.g., metadata) describing the segments (e.g., chunks), and further identifying the segments. (Ans. 21, citing Kazar, ¶ 121.) Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 1. Appellants have not presented separate arguments for claims 2–10 and 13– Appeal 2012-005321 Application 12/245,669 6 24, with respect to this issue. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1–10 and 13–24. DECISION We affirm the § 102 rejection of claims 1–10 and 13–24. We reverse the § 101 rejection of claims 21 and 22. 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 tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation