Ex Parte Velummylum et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

13161099 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/161,099 06/15/2011
71247 7590 11/02/2016
Client 170101 c/o
THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP
400 INTERSTATE NORTH PARKWAY SE
SUITE 1500
ATLANTA, GA 30339
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Piragash Velummylum
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.
170105-1570 4718
EXAMINER
SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
kristen.layton@tkhr.com
ozzie. liggins@tkhr.com
uspatents@tkhr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PIRAGASH VELUMMYLUM,
JOHANNA S. OLSON, KORWIN J. SMITH,
JAMES H. WOOD, CHRISTOPHER G. EMERY, and
WENLINMA
Appeal2015-004330
Application 13/161,099
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-004330
Application 13/161,099
STATE~vfENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-15 and 23-29. Claims 16-22 are canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to local networked storage linked to remote
networked storage system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a
program executable in a client computing device, the program
compnsmg:
code that determines whether a local networked storage
system is accessible to the client computing device through a
local network, the local networked storage system comprising a
network-attached storage device;
code that renders a user interface configured to facilitate
storage of a file in a remote networked storage system;
code that obtains an indication of the file to be stored from
a user through the user interface, the file being stored in the client
computing device;
code that sends the file to the local networked storage
system over the local network to the network-attached storage
device for storage by the local networked storage system when
the local networked storage system is determined to be accessible
to the client computing device through the local network;
code that sends the file to the remote networked storage
system over a remote network for storage by the remote
networked storage system in a metadata-based file system
managed by a user account when the local networked storage
system is determined not to be accessible to the client computing
device through the local network; and
wherein the local networked storage system is configured
to replicate the file to the remote networked storage system
2
Appeal2015-004330
Application 13/161,099
managed by the user account over the remote network in
response to the file being stored by the local networked storage
system.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Mcintyre
Lamkin
Rao
Akutsu
US 6,959, 122 B2
US 2006/0159109 Al
US 7,197,632 B2
US 7,739,540 B2
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Oct. 25, 2005
July 20, 2006
Mar. 27, 2007
June 15, 2010
Claims 1-5, 10-15, 23, and 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lamkin, Akutsu, and Mcintyre. Final
Act. 4--8.
Claims 6-9, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lamkin, Akutsu, Mcintyre, and Rao. Final Act. 9-
10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants' conclusions
in connection with the rejection of dependent claim 2. However, in
connection with the remaining claims, we disagree with Appellants'
conclusions and we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-
10) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer
in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-8) and concur with the
3
Appeal2015-004330
Application 13/161,099
conclusions reached by the Examiner. \Ve highlight the following for
emphasis. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are
presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4--23.
Independent Claims 1, 5, and 23
In connection with the rejection of claim 1, Appellants contend the
prior art fails to teach or suggest the metadata-based file system of claim 1.
App. Br. 4--5. In particular, Appellants argue "merely storing metadata
related to files [as described by Mcintyre] does not show or suggest 'a
metadata-basedfile system,' much less 'send[ing] the file ... over a remote
network for storage ... in a metadata-based file system,' as recited in claim
1." Reply Br. 5 (second alteration in original). The Examiner responds by
finding "[t]he relational database [of Mcintyre] which stores files and
metadata related to those files is a 'metadata-based file system."' Ans. 2; see
also Final Act. 6. The Examiner further finds Lamkin's remote network
(140) discloses storing data on a remote sever thereby teaching or suggesting
code that sends a file to a remote networked storage system over a remote
network for storage by the remote networked storage system as required by
claim 1. Final Act. 5. The Examiner relies on Akutsu' s fail over backup
system for teaching sending a file to the remote networked storage system
when the local networked storage system is not accessible. Final Act. 6.
The Examiner concludes the combination of Lamkin, Akutsu, and Mcintyre
teaches or suggests the entirety of the disputed limitation. Id.
Appellants' contention is not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellants' argument that Mcintyre's storage system is not a metadata-based
file system is based on unsupported attorney argument devoid of sufficient
evidence or reasoning distinguishing the claimed element over the prior art
4
Appeal2015-004330
Application 13/161,099
other than the differing nomenclature used. For example, Appellants
provide no evidence that one skilled in the art would have understood a
metadata-based file system necessarily includes features absent from or not
obvious in view of Mcintyre's storage system. Rather than provide a
definition for the disputed term, Appellants' Specification discloses "remote
networked storage system 116 may be a metadata-based file system such as
that described by U.S. Patent Application No. 13/036,539 entitled
'METADATA-BASED FILE SYSTEM."' Spec. i-f 15. Likewise, the '539
application also fails to provide a formal definition, instead disclosing "[a]
metadata service may be used to associate metadata with the files, thereby
facilitating searches of the files using the metadata. By storing files in such
a metadata-based file system, users may access the files from any computing
device that has network connectivity." US 13/036,539, Spec. i-f 9. Such a
non-limiting example describing a broad capability of a metadata-based file
system is ineffective in limiting an interpretation of the disputed system so
as to distinguish over Mcintyre's metadata-based file system. Instead, we
agree with the Examiner in finding, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation, Mcintyre's storage system, which stores "low resolution user
image files, related metadata and other information relevant to providing
services to the user" (Mcintyre col. 8, 11. 3---6), teaches or suggests the
disputed a metadata-based file system of claim 1. See Final Act. 6.
Appellants' argument alleging deficiencies of Mcintyre in teaching
other aspects of the disputed "code that sends the file to the remote
networked storage system" (App. Br. 4---6) are not persuasive because such
argument fails to address the Examiner's findings that the combination of
Lamkin and Akutsu, not Mcintyre, teaches or suggests these features (Final
5
Appeal2015-004330
Application 13/161,099
Act. 5-6; Ans. 3). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants further contend the Examiner erred by finding "'devices
capable of receiving and/or utilizing the type of content' [as taught by
Lamkin] corresponds to 'determin[ing] whether a local networked storage
system is accessible to the client computing device,' as recited in claim 1."
Reply Br. 6 (second alteration in original). Appellants argue "Lamkin
merely describes displaying devices that can receive and utilize the type of
content, but fails to show or suggest whether the devices are 'determine[d]
... [to be] accessible to the client computing device through a local
network,' as recited in claim 1." Id. (alteration in original). The Examiner
responds by finding Lamkin's display of a list of devices, with those that
typically do not accept and/or cannot use the type of content are grayed out
or otherwise indicated, teaches or suggests the disputed step of determining
whether a device is accessible. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3--4.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellants provide insufficient evidence
or technical reasoning explaining how and why the disputed step of
determining device accessibility is to be construed to distinguish over
Lamkin's selection of devices based on device capability to use a particular
type of content. That is, a device that is incapable of receiving a type of
content at least suggests a device that is not accessible in connection with
that type of content. Thus, in the absence of evidence or argument
identifying required features of the disputed accessibility determination,
under a broad but reasonable interpretation, Lamkin's identification of
6
Appeal2015-004330
Application 13/161,099
devices based on device capabilities teaches or suggests the argued
limitation.
For the reasons discussed supra, Appellants' contentions in connection
with the rejection of claim 1 are unpersuasive of Examiner error. Because
Appellants' contentions in connection with independent claims 5 and 23
(App. Br. 10-16) are substantively similar to those presented and are based
on argument made in connection with claim 1, 1 we are likewise unpersuaded
of error in the rejection of these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection
of independent claims 1, 5, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lamkin,
Akutsu, and Mcintyre together with the rejections of dependent claims 4, 8-
15, and 24--29, which are not argued separately.
Claim 2
In connection with the rejection of claim 2, the Examiner finds
Lamkin's performance metrics relating to how a user accesses content
teaches or suggests the disputed network performance benchmark between
the client computing device and the local storage system as required by
claim 2. Appellants contend, rather than using a network performance
benchmark, Lamkin optimizes storage "based on factors such as age of
content, how often content is accessed, priorities of content, personal
preferences, usage behavior, performance metrics relating to how a user
1 Although Appellants nominally include argument contending the specific
language recited by independent claims 5 and 23 is not taught or suggested
by the prior art, to the extent such argument differs from that argued in
connection with claim 1, we find these additional arguments insufficient
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim.").
7
Appeal2015-004330
Application 13/161,099
accesses content, and other such factors." App. Br. 17 (quoting Lamkin
ii 80).
We agree with Appellants. Appellants' Specification discloses:
[S]torage management application 166 may engage in some type
of discovery to determine whether the local networked storage
system 158 is present. Such discovery may include an application
on the client 106 to measure throughput, latency, and/or other
network performance benchmark parameters to determine if
connecting to the local networked storage system 158 would
provide a performance benefit over connecting to the remote
networked storage system 116.
Spec. ii 34 (emphasis added).
We agree with Appellants in concluding Lamkin is deficient in
rendering claim 2 obvious. In particular, it is not apparent how Lamkin's
metrics relating to how a user accesses content have any relation to, or
otherwise teach or suggest, a network performance benchmark. Therefore,
on the record before us, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lamkin, Akutsu, and Mcintyre.
Claim 3
In connection with the rejection of claim 3, Appellants contend:
Lamkin discloses a centralized database that tracks the location
of local and centralized content and not "a user interface [that]
does not distinguish between files stored in both the local ...
and remote networked storage system and files stored in the
remote networked storage system but not the local networked
storage system," as recited in claim 3.
App. Br. 19 (alteration in original). The Examiner finds, in the absence of
any indication to the contrary, Lamkin' s tracking of local and centralized
content does not distinguish between files, that is, the centralized database
8
Appeal2015-004330
Application 13/161,099
"track[ s] the location of content whether it is local or centralized (remote)."
Final Act. 6-7.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Lamkin neither recommends
nor requires distinguishing between files based on storage location and/or
whether stored only remotely or also locally. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner in finding Lamkin teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of
claim 3 and, accordingly, sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Lamkin, Akutsu, and Mcintyre.
Claim 6
In connection with the rejection of claim 6, Appellants contend the
rejection is improper because
Rao fails to show or suggest "logic that sends a first request to
read a second file to the local networked storage system over
the local network," as recited in claim 6. That is, Rao describes
extracting information from a shared storage system and not a
"local networked storage system over the local network," as
recited in claim 6.
App. Br. 21. The Examiner responds by finding "Lamkin [0049] teaches not
only network attached storage, but also a client storing content on devices
such as 'storage or other memory (e.g. database, network attached storage,
and other such storage) that store content."' Ans. 7.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because it fails to address the
Examiner's finding that, in the proposed combination, Lamkin, not Rao,
teaches or suggests the disputed local networked storage system. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lamkin,
Akutsu, Mcintyre, and Rao.
9
Appeal2015-004330
Application 13/161,099
Claim 7
In connection with the rejection of claim 7, Appellants contend:
Lamkin fails to show or suggest the cache and buff er
management "obtain[ing] the second file from the remote
networked storage system managed by the user account when
the second file is not cached," as recited in claim 7. That is,
Lamkin describes cache management in terms of when and how
to transfer content and not "from the remote networked storage
system managed by the user account when the second file is not
cached," as recited in claim 7.
App. Br. 22 (alteration in original). The Examiner responds "Lamkin [0082]
discloses using schedules and user rules to implement transfers of content
for storing, recording and/or archiving. The returning of a file to a device
from a file cache is archiving the file." Ans. 7-8.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. Under a
broad but reasonable interpretation, claim 7 does not require the second file
be obtained from the remote networked storage system only when the second
file is not cached, but at least when the second is not cached. Thus, because
Lamkin teaches obtaining the second file from the remote networked storage
system as required by claim 1, it also teaches or suggests taking such action
when the second file (is or) is not cached. Furthermore, we note in passing
and without reliance in our decision, obtaining a file from a storage system
upon a cache miss (i.e., when the file is not "cached") is a basic underlying
principle of cache management. That is, if valid data is present in cache,
then the data is retrieved from cache; otherwise, the data is retrieved from
10
Appeal2015-004330
Application 13/161,099
other storage and either read directly or through the cache. See, e.g.,
Microsoft Computer Dictionary 81 (5th ed. 2002).2
For the reasons discussed supra we find no error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 7 and sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Lamkin, Akutsu, Mcintyre, and Rao together with the
rejection of dependent claims 8 and 9, which are not argued separately.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 2 is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-15, and 23-29 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2 cache n. A special memory subsystem in which frequently used data values
are duplicated for quick access. A memory cache stores the contents of
frequently accessed RAM locations and the addresses where these data items
are stored. When the processor references an address in memory, the cache
checks to see whether it holds that address. If it does hold the address, the
data is returned to the processor; if it does not, a regular memory access
occurs.
11