Ex Parte Subramaniam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2016

13414175 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/414,175 03/07/2012 Kalambur Subramaniam
56436 7590 03/25/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82870596 3903
EXAMINER
HOANG, HAU HAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KALAMBUR SUBRAMANIAM,
RAJESH KUMAR MISHRA, MANDAR NANIV ADEKAR,
PRAKASH B. ANGADI, and ALBRECHT SCHROTH
Appeal2014-006250
Application 13/414,175
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, reproduced below with certain disputed limitations
emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for implementing a
scalable test environment, comprising:
modeling, within a file system environment creator executing on
a computing device, a structure of a file system used by
an application;
Appeal2014-006250
Application 13/414,175
intercepting a system call from the application to the file system
at the file system environment creator; and
generating a content of the file system dynamically within the
file system environment creator based on the system call
and the structure of the file system.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Taylor (US 2012/0131012 Al;
published May 24, 2012). Final Act. 2-12.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Taylor and Weissman (US 7,461,076 Bl; issued
Dec. 2, 2008). Final Act. 12-16.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner interprets the claimed "file system" as "the overall
structure in which files are named, stored, and organized," and which
"consists of files, directories, or folders, and the information needed to
locate and access these items." Ans. 5. Based on this interpretation, the
Examiner finds Taylor discloses that,
[w]hen an application interacts with a file system, a model (e.g.,
statistical model) is built of which areas of file system are
active or highly active. Fig 4., item 408 is a [data]
representation of files and folders .... Clearly, a structure of
[the] file system comprises folders (e.g., Frank, My
Documents) and files (e.g., Customer Details.doc,
Shopping.doc) [that] are modeled within memory of endpoint.
2
Appeal2014-006250
Application 13/414,175
Id. at 7. The Examiner further finds Taylor's data representation 408 "is
created/updated by system calls to files and folders in [the] file system." Id.
at 10.
Appellants dispute that Taylor discloses the "modeling" and
"generating" limitations of claim 1 and commensurate limitations of claims
9 and 16. App. Br. 8. First, Appellants attempt to distinguish the
"modeling" limitation from Taylor's statistical model that "'builds up a data
representation of files and folders' to show the type of access and the
number of access[ es]" on the bases that
[t]he present disclosure provides that a structure of a file system
includes the organization of directories within the file system,
the number of files within each directory of the file system, or
the depth of the file system [and] ...
models a file system based on policy, where the structure of the
modeled file system can be modeled to 'include a number of
directories within the file system, a number of files in each
directory of the file system, or a depth of the file system.'
Id. at 8-9 citing Taylor i-f 42 and Specification i-f 23, and p. 6, 11. 19-23
(emphasis added). Second, Appellants argue Taylor does not disclose
"generating any content dynamically" because
[i]n the present claims, the content of the file system is
generated dynamically in response to the system calls of a
particular application without the use of a dedicated storage
space. See Specification, paras. [0018], [0019]. By contrast,
the data representation in Taylor is maintained in any
convenient manner, such as 'a set of relational tables, as a
linked list, as a data array, or the like' ... [and] may be stored
as a 'conventional file system.'
App. Br. 10 (emphasis added). Third, Appellants also argue Taylor does not
disclose the "generating" limitation because
3
Appeal2014-006250
Application 13/414,175
the system call of the present disclosure may be used to
dynamically generate the content of a file system to include
'delet[ing], renam[ing], or recreat[ing] certain files at a
particular point in time, chang[ing] file attributes, or
chang[ing] a few blocks of certain files at a particular point in
time.' See Specification, para. [0026]. Additionally, the file
system may be generated dynamically by determining for each
file within the file system 'a size of the file, a file permission
associated with the file, and data within the file.' See id., para.
[0033]. Clearly, the monitoring of read and write events to
model a file system is not equivalent to a file system that can be
dynamically generated in the present independent claims.
App. Br. 10-11 (emphasis added).
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification,
taking into consideration definitions presented in the specification. In re
Prater, 415F.2d1393, 1404---05(CCPA1969); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575,
577 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the
specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also SuperGuide
Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[A]
particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read
into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.").
As to the first argument regarding the "modeling" limitation,
Appellants present neither an alternative construction for the claim term "file
system" nor sufficient evidence to persuade us the Examiner's interpretation
of "file system" is overbroad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the
Specification. See App. Br. 9. The portions of the Specification cited by
Appellants describe a "file system" and "a structure of a file system" using
4
Appeal2014-006250
Application 13/414,175
non-limiting, exemplary language. See e.g., Specification if 23 ("[t]he
structure of the file system 200 may include a number of directories ... "
emphasis added). However, the Specification does not define either of these
terms in a manner that conforms to the strict "words or expressions of
manifest exclusion or restriction" requirement articulated by the Court in
Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1327 (Fed. Circ.
2002). See e.g., Specification iii! 23, 24. Similarly, the Specification does
not define a "model" or require the "modeling" limitation to only be based
on policy. Id. at iii! 18, 19, 38.
With regard to the second and third arguments, the Specification does
not define either "a content of the file system" or the "generating" limitation,
nor does it exclude storing the content in a dedicated storage space from this
limitation. Id. at iii! 18, 19 ("the file system environment creator 124 may
dynamically model the state of the file system 128 ... without the use of a
dedicated storage space" emphasis added). Further, the Specification does
not require the "generating" limitation to include determining file attributes
or modifying files and file attributes, contrary to Appellants' arguments. Id.
at iii! 26, 31, and 33 ("[t]he system call may be used to delete, rename, or
recreate certain files at a particular point in time, change file attributes, or
change a few blocks of certain files" emphasis added).
The features argued by Appellants are not recited in claims 1, 9, and
16, nor are such features properly imported from the Specification into the
claims. See Ans. 5-9 citing In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1181. As such,
none of Appellants' first, second, and third arguments are commensurate
with the scope of claims 1, 9, and 16 and thus, are not persuasive to rebut the
Examiner's findings. In re Self, 671F.2d1344, 1350-51(CCPA1969).
5
Appeal2014-006250
Application 13/414,175
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding Taylor discloses the limitations of claim 1, commensurate limitations
of claims 9 and 16, and limitations of claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20, which
are not separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-16, and 18-20 and the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 4, 8, 11, and 17 1.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
1 Claims 3, 4, 8, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Taylor and Weissman. As these
claims are not separately argued, we reach the same conclusion with respect
to these claims as with respect to claims 1, 9, and 16, from which claims 3,
4, 8, 11, and 17 depend, for substantially similar reasons.
6