Ex Parte Ross et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2018

14019410 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

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