Ex Parte Ross et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201814019410 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/019,410 09/05/2013 12371 7590 03/29/2018 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C./QUALCOMM 4000 Legato Road, Suite 310 Fairfax, VA 22033 Robert F. Ross 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. QC152695Cl 1056 EXAMINER VO, THANH DUC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2139 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2018 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): meo.docket@mg-ip.com meo@mg-ip.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT F. ROSS and MICHAEL P. LYLE 1 Appeal2016-005317 Application 14/019 ,410 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 2, 4--11, 13-18, and 20-29. Claims 1, 3, 12, and 19 are canceled. App. Br. 14--16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. Invention The application discloses a distributed content storage and retrieval system that includes selecting a storage location "to perform an operation with respect to [a] content object ... based ... on probability data indicating 1 Appellant is the Applicant, QUALCOMM Inc., which the Appeal Brief identifies as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-005317 Application 14/019 ,410 a degree to which the selected storage location is associated statistically with a feature ... associated with the content object." Abstract. Illustrative Claim (key limitations emphasized) 2. A system of storing data, comprising: a processor configured to: gather, from each storage location of a plurality of storage locations within a distributed content storage system, a corresponding plurality of access count data corresponding to respective ones of a plurality of features wherein an access count data of the plurality of access count data corresponding to a respective feature of the plurality of features represents at least one of a quantity of objects stored at that storage location that have that feature and a quantity of objects accessed at that storage location that have that feature; determine probability data based at least in part on the corresponding plurality of access count data corresponding to respective ones of the plurality of features gathered from each storage location, wherein the probability data comprises data that indicates with respect to each storage location for each feature, a probability that an object having that feature will be accessed from that storage location; determine a set of features associated with a content object associated with an operation, wherein the set of features comprises a set of properties associated with the content object; use at least the probability data to determine for each storage location of at least a subset of the plurality of storage locations, a corresponding expected likelihood that an object having a feature of the set of features associated with the content object is associated with that storage location; and select a storage location to perform the operation with respect to the content object, from the plurality of storage locations, based at least in part on an expected likelihood that the object having the feature is associated with the selected storage location; and 2 Appeal 2016-005317 Application 14/019 ,410 a memory coupled to the processor and configured to provide the processor with instructions. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 2, 4--11, 13-18, and 20-292 under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 4--11, 13-18, and 20-29 under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventors regard as the invention. Final Act. 4. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 4--11, 13-18, 20-21, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karlsson et al. (US 2005/ 0097286 Al; published May 5, 2005), Ulrich et al. (US 2002/0124137 Al; published Sept. 5, 2002), and Vanninen et al. (US 8,156,290 Bl; issued Apr. 10, 2012). Final Act. 5-14. The Examiner rejects claims 22-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karlsson and Ulrich. Final Act. 14--18. ANALYSIS Claim Construction Claim 2 recites "an access count data . . . represents at least one of a quantity of objects stored at that storage location that have that feature and a quantity of objects accessed at that storage location that have that feature" (emphasis added). The plain meaning of a recitation directed to at least one of A and Bis directed to at least one of A and at least one of B. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 886 (Fed. Cir. 2 The Examiner includes canceled claims in the statements for this and other rejections. Final Act. 2, 4--5. 3 Appeal 2016-005317 Application 14/019 ,410 2 004) ("the phrase 'at least one of' modifies each member of the list"). Analysis of the Specification, including the claims, can reveal a clear definition or disavowal which would compel a different construction (e.g., a construction directed to at least one of A, at least one of B, or any combination of A and B having at least one A or at least one B). See Ex parte Jung, No. 2016-008290, 2017 WL 1130560, *3--4 (PTAB 2017) (non- precedential). However, neither the Appellant nor the Examiner provides the requisite analysis to set aside the plain meaning of the disputed recitation. Furthermore, our own review of the Specification has not unveiled evidence sufficient to adopt anything beyond the plain meaning of the disputed recitation. The Specification even discloses maintaining consistency of statistical profiles among nodes by preparing new access and storage profiles that are adopted, with agreement as to a time when they will be made active, through an atomic commitment protocol. Spec. i-f 32. Thus, multiple versions of statistical profile values can exist in an embodiment disclosed in the Specification (e.g., the values in the active statistical profile, the values in a statistical profile that has been prepared but not committed, and the values in a statistical profile that has been committed, but is not yet active). That is, more than one "quantity of objects stored" and more than one "quantity of objects accessed" could exist at a particular storage location for a particular feature. Thus, the "at least one of' is not limited by the claim language or the Specification to mean either a "quantity of objects stored," a "quantity of objects accessed," or both. Therefore, the disputed recitation of claim 1, given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, is directed to "access count data [that] represents at least 4 Appeal 2016-005317 Application 14/019 ,410 one of a quantity of objects stored at that storage location that have that feature and [at least one of] a quantity of objects accessed at that storage location that have that feature" (emphases added). 35USC§l12(a) In rejecting claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Examiner finds "[t]here is no teaching in the specification showing that 'an access count ... represents at least one of a quantity of objects stored and access[ ed]."' Final Act. 3. The Examiner notes that "an access count to a particular[] data object is different from a quantity of objects." Id. The Examiner finds the Specification merely discloses "a method of keeping a count per feature of how many times an access of an object containing the feature" and "a method of keeping a count of how many of its locally stored files have a given feature." Id. (citing Spec. i-f 32). Thus, the Examiner finds the claimed "access count does not represent a quantity of objects as claimed." Final Act. 3. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the disputed recitation is directed more generally to "access count data" that includes at least one of a quantity of objects stored and a quantity of objects accessed at a storage location having a particular feature. App. Br. 6. Appellant further argues the Specification explicitly discloses not just nodes each keeping a count per feature of how many times an object containing the feature is accessed and how many locally stored files have a given feature, but also gathering from nodes counts per feature of stored files and recent accesses. Id. at 5---6 ( citing Spec. i-fi-132-35); see also Reply Br. 2-3. In response, the Examiner concludes the data recitation "doesn't change the scope or the definition for the term 'access count' [as] simply 5 Appeal 2016-005317 Application 14/019 ,410 refer[ ring] to the 'count' per feature of how many times an" object is accessed. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds, in particular, "'access count data' by definition does not hold the number/quantity of objects stored at that storage location that have that feature," but instead merely "represents a number of accesses to an object that has a particular feature." Id. We agree with Appellant the Examiner erred. "Access count data" is arguably a poorly chosen label for data describing not just at least one of a quantity of objects accessed but also at least one of a quantity of objects stored because, absent context, "access count data" connotes a description of how many times an access occurred, rather than how many objects were accessed and how many objects are stored. However, a count of objects that have been accessed is still an "access count." And nothing in the term "access count data" precludes the data from including additional information such how many objects are stored. Moreover, the disputed recitation not only defines "access count data" to mean data representing the quantities recited, but the Specification explicitly discloses embodiments that include, for example"[ c ]ounts per feature of stored files and recent accesses." Spec. i-f 35. These embodiments would have reasonably conveyed to an artisan of ordinary skill that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention. For these reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Specification provides written description support for the disputed recitation of claim 2. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection of claim 2, and claims 4--11, 13-18, and 20-29, which are rejected for similar reasons. 6 Appeal 2016-005317 Application 14/019 ,410 35USC§l12(b) In rejecting claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b ), the Examiner finds the claimed invention is indefinite because "[it] is unclear how 'an access count' can represent 'a quantity of objects' since access count signifies the number of access while quantity of object signifies the number of objects." Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 4--5. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because claim 2 does "not simply recite 'a quantity of objects', but instead recite[s] 'a quantity of objects stored at that storage location that have that feature' and 'a quantity of objects accessed at that storage location that have that feature."' App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 3--4. We agree with Appellant the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds "[i]t is understood that the term 'access' in access count data [refers to] I/O requests or I/O operations (e.g.[,] read and write) to a data object[s]." Ans. 4. However, as discussed above, claim 2 specifically identifies the type of information included in the claimed "access count data," which we agree can include a count of objects that have been accessed. Thus, the meaning of the claimed "access count data," read in context of the recitations that follow-and further read light of the Specification-is not "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention." In re Packard, 751F.3d1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, we do not agree with the Examiner that claim 2 is indefinite. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 2, and claims 4--11, 13-18, and 20-29, which are rejected for similar reasons. 7 Appeal 2016-005317 Application 14/019 ,410 35 USC§ 103(a) In rejecting claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds Karlsson's selection and use of a heuristic class to determine data placement for a distributed storage system teaches or suggests a processor configured to use probability data to determine for each storage location, a corresponding expected likelihood that an object having a feature is associated with that storage location. Final Act. 5---6 (citing Karlsson i-fi-133, 37); Ans. 7. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "there is no disclosure in Karlsson of a [determining] 'corresponding [to an] expected likelihood that an object having a feature of the set o(features associated with the content object is associated with that storage location."' App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 6-7. We agree with Appellant the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds Karlsson teaches or suggests using "derived probability data to evaluate a corresponding expected likelihood that an object having feature (e.g.[,] performance requirement) of the set of features associated with the content object is associated with that storage location for data placement." Ans. 7 (citing Karlsson i-fi-133, 37). However, the embodiments in Karlsson cited to by the Examiner specifically relate to using a heuristic for data placement through, for example, "simulating implementation of the data placement on a system experiencing a workload," "simulating implementation of the data placement on at least two different system configurations experiencing a workload," or "implementing the data placement on a distributed storage system experiencing an actual workload." Karlsson i133. In all of the example heuristics Karlsson discloses, the goal is to ascertain where to place data, not to ascertain a probability that data is associated with a storage location. That is, the cited 8 Appeal 2016-005317 Application 14/019 ,410 teachings of Karlsson relate to ascertaining whether a particular data placement strategy would meet identified performance requirements rather than the claimed association probability. Id. i-f 37. Therefore, the Examiner's findings do not show that Karlsson teaches or suggests using "probability data to determine for each storage location ... a corresponding expected likelihood that an object having a feature ... is associated with that storage location," as recited in claim 2. Furthermore, the Examiner does not show that Ulrich or Vanninen cure the noted deficiency of Karlsson. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 2, and the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 4--11, 13-18, and 20-29, which contain similar recitations. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2, 4--11, 13-18, and 20-29. REVERSED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation