Ex Parte Saito et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2012

10961570 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YASUSHI SAITO and SVEND FROLUND
____________________

Appeal 2010-005947
Application 10/961,570
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JASON V. MORGAN, and BRYAN
F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005947
Application 10/961,570

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1, 4-16, 19-29, 35-36, and 38-44, the only claims pending
in the application on appeal. Claims 2-3, 17-18, 30-34, and 37 are cancelled.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
The Appellants invented a method of reconfiguring a redundant data
storage system. Specification 1-2.
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 of reconfiguring a redundant data storage system
comprising:
[1] redundantly storing a plurality of erasure-coded data
segments by a first group of storage devices, at least a quorum
of storage devices of the first group each storing at least a
portion of each erasure-coded data segment, each of the
portions of each erasure-coded data segment comprising data or
parity;
[2] forming a second group of storage devices, the second
group having different membership from the first group;
[3] identifying a data segment among the plurality of
erasure-coded data segments for which a consistent version is
not stored by at least a quorum of the second group; and
[4] writing at least a portion of the identified data segment to at
least one of the storage devices of the second group so that at least a

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Oct. 7, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 24, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 24, 2009), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed May 7, 2009).
Appeal 2010-005947
Application 10/961,570

3
quorum of the second group stores a consistent version of the
identified data segment.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Briskey
Gabber
US 6,490,693 B1
US 6,763,436 B2
Dec. 3, 2002
Jul. 13, 2004

Goodson, Garth R., Jay J. Wylie, Gregory R. Ganger, Michael K.
Reiter, Efficient consistency for erasure-coded data via versioning
servers, Technical Report CMU-CS-03-127, Carnegie Mellon
University, March 2003
Englert, Burkhard and Alexander Shvartsman, Graceful
Quorum Reconfiguration in a Robust Emulation of Shared
Memory, Proc. 20th Int’l Conf. on Distributed Computing
Systems, Taipai, Taiwan, April 10-13, 2000, pp. 454-463

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-16, 19-23, 26-29, 35-36, and 38-44 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodson and Briskey.
Ans. 4-16.
Claims 10-11 and 24-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Goodson, Briskey, and Gabber. Ans. 16-18.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-16, 19-23, 26-29, 35-36, and 38-44 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodson and Englert.
Ans. 18-33.
Claims 10-11 and 24-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Goodson, Englert, and Gabber. Ans. 33-35.
Appeal 2010-005947
Application 10/961,570

4
ISSUES
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4-16,
19-29, 35-36, and 38-44 turns on whether the combination of Goodson and
Briskey teaches or suggests “identifying a data segment among a plurality of
erasure-coded data segments for which a consistent version is not stored by
at least a quorum of the second group” and “writing at least a portion of the
identified data segment to at least one of the storage devices of the second
group so that at least a quorum of the second group stores a consistent
version of the identified data segment,” as set forth by limitations [3] and [4]
of independent claim 1 and as similarly required by independent claims 16,
35, 36, and 42.
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5-6 and
20-21 additionally turns on whether the combination of Goodson and
Briskey teaches or suggests timestamps that indicate an incomplete write
operation on an identified data segment.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with the Appellants’ 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 Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following arguments for emphasis.

Appeal 2010-005947
Application 10/961,570

5
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-16, 19-23, 26-29, 35-36, and 38-44 rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodson and Briskey
Claims 1, 16, 35, 36, and 42
The Appellants contend that the combination of Goodson and Briskey
does not teach or suggest “identifying a data segment among the plurality of
erasure-coded data segments for which a consistent version is not stored by
at least a quorum of the second group” and “writing at least a portion of the
identified data segment to at least one of the storage devices of the second
group so that at least a quorum of the second group stores a consistent
version of the identified data segment,” as required by limitations [3] and [4]
of independent claim 1 and as similarly required by independent claims 16,
35, 36, and 42. App. Br. 8-9, 13-14 and Reply Br. 1-3, 6-7.
We disagree with the Appellants. In rejecting independent claims 1,
16, 35, 36, and 42, the Examiner relies on Goodson to describe all of the
limitations of claim 1 except for “forming a second group of storage devices,
the second ground having different membership from the first group,” as
required by limitation [2]. Ans. 4-6. The Examiner finds that Briskey
describes reconfiguring a first group of servers by adding or deleting servers
to create a new second group of servers with different membership from the
first group. Ans. 37 (citing Briskey 2:17-40).
The Appellants specifically argue that since Goodson does not
describe limitation [2] of claim 1 and this necessarily means that Goodson
does not teach limitations [3] and [4]. App. Br. 8 and 14. The Appellants
further argue that Briskey does not teach or suggest limitations [3] and [4].
App. Br. 8-10 and Reply Br. 2-3. However, as discussed supra, the
Examiner relies on Goodson to describe limitations [3] and [4] and Briskey
Appeal 2010-005947
Application 10/961,570

6
to describe limitation [2]. Ans. 4-6, 9-10, 14-16, and 37 (citing Goodson 5,
7, and 12 and Briskey 2:17-40). As such, the Appellants’ contention is
tantamount to an attack on the references individually even though rejection
is based on the combination of the references and therefore we are not
persuaded by this argument. Nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a
combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, the Appellants contend that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have not found any reason to combine Goodson and Briskey.
App. Br. 10-11. The Appellants specifically argue that the teachings of
Briskey are in a context that is completely different from the claimed
invention and the teachings of Goodson. App. Br. 11.
We disagree with the Appellants. The Examiner found that a person
with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
Goodson and Briskey to increase efficiency by allowing the dynamic
reconfiguring of a group of servers, thus allowing the addition and
manipulation of servers while a set of servers are unavailable. Ans. 5 – 6.
The Examiner also found that Goodson and Briskey disclose overlapping
subject matter directed to the field of data replication management. Ans. 38-
39. That is, both references are concerned with having a quorum of servers
with correct and consistent data. Ans. 38-39. As such, Goodson and
Briskey are concerned with the same problem and a person with ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to rely on their teachings. Furthermore,
the Appellants have failed to provide any rationale or evidence to illustrate
why combining Briskey’s server group reconfiguration with Goodson’s
Appeal 2010-005947
Application 10/961,570

7
erasure-coded data system would yield anything more than predicable
results. Therefore, we are not persuaded by the Appellants’ contention that a
person with ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the prior art.
The Appellants further contend that dependent claims 4-9, 12-15, 19-
23, 26-29, 38-41, and 43-44 are allowable for similar reasons asserted supra
in support of independent claims 1, 16, 35, 36, and 42. App. Br. 13-18 and
Reply Br. 6-7. We disagree with the Appellants. The Appellants’
arguments were not found to be persuasive supra and are not found to be
persuasive here for the same reasons.

Claims 5-6, 20-21, and 41
The Appellants contend that Goodson does not teach or suggest
“wherein the timestamps indicate an incomplete write operation on the
identified data segment,” as required by claim 5 and as similarly required by
claims 20 and 41. App. Br. 12-13 and Reply Br. 4-6. The Appellants
specifically argue that Goodson describes determining whether a write
operation is complete or partial, which is not based on timestamps. App. Br.
12. And Reply Br. 5.
We disagree with the Appellants. The Examiner finds that Goodson
teaches timestamps associated with erasure-coded data and a group of
servers. Ans. 40 (citing Goodson 5). Goodson describes logical timestamps
used to order write operations and identify write requests, including
generating a unique logical timestamp for each write. Goodson 5. The
Examiner additionally finds that Goodson’s timestamps all write operations
whether complete or incomplete, and therefore meets the limitation of claim
5. Ans. 41. Goodson explicitly describes creating a timestamp with write
Appeal 2010-005947
Application 10/961,570

8
operations, identifying candidate data-items based on the greatest timestamp,
and classifying candidates as complete or incomplete. Goodson 5. That is,
Goodson describes that an operation is not complete unless a timestamp is
associated with the operation. Goodson 5-6 (see Fig. 2; step 2 of the write
function). As such, the limitation requiring “timestamps [to] indicate an
incomplete write operation” encompasses the write operation requiring a
timestamp to be included in a completed operation as described by Goodson.
The Appellants further contend that dependent claims 6, 21, and 44
are allowable for similar reasons asserted supra with respect to claim 5.
App. Br. 19-22. We disagree with the Appellants. The Appellants’
arguments were not found to be persuasive supra and are not found to be
persuasive here for the same reasons.

Claims 10-11 and 24-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goodson, Briskey, and Gabber
The Appellants contend that dependent claims 10-11 and 24-25 are
allowable for the same reasons asserted supra in support of independent
claims 1 and 16, respectively. App. Br. 18. We disagree with the
Appellants. The Appellants’ arguments were not found to be persuasive
supra and are not found to be persuasive here for the same reasons.

Claims 1, 4-9, 12-16, 19-23, 26-29, 35-36, and 38-44 rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodson and Englert and
claims 10-11 and 24-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goodson, Englert, and Gabber
Appeal 2010-005947
Application 10/961,570

9
The Examiner has presented cumulative rejections for claims 1, 4-16,
19-29, 35-36, and 38-44. Since we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 4-9, 12-
16, 19-23, 26-29, 35-36, and 38-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Goodson and Briskey and claims 10-11 and 24-25 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Goodson, Briskey, and Gabber, we decline to
reach the cumulative rejection of claims 1, 4-9, 12-16, 19-23, 26-29, 35-36,
and 38-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodson and
Englert and claims 10-11 and 24-25 and claims 10-11 and 24-25 rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodson, Englert, and
Gabber.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4-9, 12-16, 19-23, 26-
29, 35-36, and 38-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Goodson and Briskey.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 10-11 and 24-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goodson, Briskey, and Gabber.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows:
 The rejection of claims 1, 4-16, 19-29, 35-36, and 38-44 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
Appeal 2010-005947
Application 10/961,570

10

tj