Ex Parte Reuter

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2012

11099017 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAMES M. REUTER
____________________

Appeal 2010-005917
Application 11/099,017
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005917
Application 11/099,017

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
1

The Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-20, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

The Appellant invented distributed data-storage systems and other
distributed computer systems that employ distributed state information and
methods for efficiently managing the distributed state information.
Specification 1:7-9.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. A method for managing state information in a distributed
computing system composed of component computing systems,
the method comprising:
[1] for each component computing system,
[a] assigning each unit of state information to one of
three partitions including
[i] local state information,
[ii] distributed, shared, locally cached, but
globally consistent state information, and
[iii] distributed, shared state information; and
[2] during operation of the distributed computing system,
[a] when units of state information are assigned to the
local state information partition, independently managing, on
each component computing system, local state information,

1
Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Sep. 24, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 11, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 8, 2009), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Jun. 15, 2009).
Appeal 2010-005917
Application 11/099,017

3
[b] when units of state information are assigned to the
distributed, shared, locally cached, but globally consistent state
information partition, managing each unit of distributed, shared,
locally cached, but globally consistent state information among
two or more component computing systems using a distributed-
but-locally-cached-storage-register protocol, and
[c] when units of state information are assigned to the
distributed, shared, state information partition, managing each
unit of distributed, shared state information using a distributed-
storage-register protocol.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Mahadev Satyanarayanan, Scalable, Secure, and Highly Available
Distributed File Access, IEEE Computer, May 1990, vol. 23, no.5, retrieved
from internet 8/17/2008
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/codawww/ResearchWebPages/docdir/i
eeepcs95.pdf

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which the Appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8-13, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Satyanarayanan.

ISSUES
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
Appellant regards as the invention turns on whether a person with ordinary
Appeal 2010-005917
Application 11/099,017

4
skill in the art would have understood what is being claimed by the terms
“distributed-but-locally-cached-storage-register protocol” and “distributed-
storage-register protocol.”
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 8-13,
19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Satyanarayanan
turns on whether Satyanarayanan describes “assigning each unit of state
information to one of three partitions, including local state information,
distributed, shared, locally cached, but globally consistent state information,
and distributed, shared state information,” as required by independent claim
1 and as similarly recited in independent claim 11.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the Appellant regards as the invention
The Examiner found that the terms “distributed-but-locally-cached-
storage-register protocol” and “distributed-storage-register protocol” are
indefinite. Ans. 3-4 and 12-18. The Appellant contends that the
Specification clearly provides definitions and context for the terms
“distributed-but-locally-cached-storage-register” and “distributed-storage-
register” and the term “protocol” is known by a skilled artisan to encompass
various sequences of messages exchanging between communicating
computer system in order to carry out an operation or task. App. Br. 6-14
and Reply Br. 2-14.
We agree with the Appellant. The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is whether “those skilled in the art would
Appeal 2010-005917
Application 11/099,017

5
understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the
specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d
1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). We find that a skilled
artisan would understand what is being claimed by the terms “distributed-
but-locally-cached-storage-register protocol” and “distributed-storage-
register protocol.” As highlighted by the Appellant, a distributed data-
storage system is partitioned to include:
(1) [L]ocal state information that is particular to, and that can be
completely managed by, a single component data-storage
system; (2) distributed and shared, but locally cached, state
information that is shared between multiple component data-
storage devices but that can be locally cached in individual
component data-storage systems for immediate read access, that
is updated at a selected refresh frequency, and that is globally
consistent among component data-storage systems by virtue of
fully distributed write access; and (3) distributed shared state
information that is kept continuously consistent among the
component data-storage systems that share the state
information.
App. Br. 8-9 (citing Specification 15:3-17). We also agree with the
Appellant that a person with ordinary skill in the art would understand the
term “protocol” to encompass various steps or tasks required to carry out an
operation. Reply Br. 6. Therefore, a person with ordinary skill in the art
would have understood the scope of “distributed-but-locally-cached-storage-
register protocol” to encompass the steps to carry out a storage register that
is distributed but locally cached and “distributed-storage-register protocol”
to encompass the steps to carry out a storage register continuously consisting
among data-storage systems. As such, a person with ordinary skill in the art
would have understood what is being claimed by the terms “distributed-but-
Appeal 2010-005917
Application 11/099,017

6
locally-cached-storage-register protocol” and “distributed-storage-register
protocol.”

Claims 1, 2, 8-13, 19, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
anticipated by Satyanarayanan
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with the Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following arguments for emphasis.
The Appellant contends that Satyanarayanan fails to describe
“assigning each unit of state information to one of three partitions, including
local state information, distributed, shared, locally cached, but globally
consistent state information, and distributed, shared state information,” as
required by independent claim 1. App. Br. 14-19 and Reply Br. 14-33.
Independent claim 11 recites both managing protocols and three state-
information partitions. App. Br. 17. The Appellant specifically argues that
Satyanarayanan describes a client/server architecture, but there is no obvious
connection between the servers. App. Br. 15-16.
We disagree with the Appellant. Claim 1 requires assigning state
information to a partition, including (1) location state information, (2)
distributed, shared, locally cached, but globally consistent state information,
and (3) distributed shared state information. Claim 1 further requires that (1)
Appeal 2010-005917
Application 11/099,017

7
local state information is managed independently on each component
computing system, (2) distributed, shared, locally cached, but globally
consistent state information is managed using a distributed-but-locally-
cached-storage-register protocol, and (3) distributed, shared state
information is managed using a distributed-storage-register protocol.
Satyanarayanan describes the distributed Andrew and Coda
distributed file systems. Satyanarayanan 1. Specifically, “Coda strives
for . . . constant data availability, allowing a user to continue working
regardless of failures elsewhere in the system. Coda provides users with the
benefits of a shared data repository but allows them to rely entirely on local
resources when that repository is partially or totally inaccessible.”
Satyanarayanan 15. “Coda provides failure resiliency through two distinct
mechanisms. It uses server replication, or the storing of copies of files at
multiple servers, to provide a highly available shared storage repository.
When no server can be contacted, the client resorts to disconnected
operation, a mode of execution in which the client relies solely on cached
data.” (emphasis in original). Id. Satyanarayanan further discusses a cache
miss is handled by a client requesting the same information from multiple
servers. Satyanarayanan 16; figures 5 and 6. That is, Satyanarayanan
describes (1) managing local state information using a protocol that requires
using locally cached data that is independent from the servers, (2) managing
distributed files on a local cache when a distributed repository is partially or
totally unavailable, and (3) managing distributed files among multiple
servers. As such, although Satyanarayanan does not use the same terms as
the claimed invention, Satyanarayanan describes the features and
functionality recited in claims.
Appeal 2010-005917
Application 11/099,017

8
In rebutting this finding by the Examiner, the Appellant merely asserts
that the claims do not require VSGs, a disconnect mode, or changes during
disconnected operation being cached. App. Br. 16-17 and Reply Br. 17-18.
While we agree that the claims do not require these features, the Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive in distinguishing the claimed invention from
Satyanarayanan.
Absent any evidence or rationale, we do not find the Appellant’s
arguments persuasive. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11 and dependent claims 2, 8-10,12, 13, 19, and
20.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the Appellant regards as the
invention.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 8-13, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Satyanarayanan.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the Appellant regards as the
invention is not sustained.
Appeal 2010-005917
Application 11/099,017

9
 The rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-13, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Satyanarayanan is sustained.

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ELD