Ex Parte Wade et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 2018

14509749 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/509,749 10/08/2014 76444 7590 Setter Roche LLP 14694 Orchard Parkway Building A, Suite 200 Westminster, CO 80023 12/04/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gregory L. Wade 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. 857.003lcl 1018 EXAMINER MILLS, PAUL V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2196 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/04/2018 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): uspto@setterroche.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GREGORY L. WADE and J. MITCHELL HAILE 1 Appeal2018-003656 Application 14/509,749 Technology Center 2100 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Quantum Corporation. See Br. 2. Appeal2018-003656 Application 14/509,749 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-16. This application, serial number 14/509,749 (Appeal 2018-003656), is a continuation of application serial number 13/459,451, which had a prior decision on appeal (Appeal 2017-003095) affirming the rejection of all claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 2 THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a data control system for a virtual environment. Spec., Title. Claim 9, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 9. A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon for operating a data control system, wherein the instructions, when executed by the data control system, direct the data control system to perform a method of file system access to a virtual machine environment, the method compnsmg: emulating a physical storage element by providing a file system interface to contents of a plurality of data volumes in a virtual machine environment, wherein the file system interface represents the contents as contents of a file system in a standard format used for physical storage elements; receiving a file system write request for the file system interface, wherein the file system write request comprises a write request in a format that is standard for issuing instructions to access data in the file system; and converting the file system write request into an application program interface (API) for the virtual machine environment to import the data into the virtual machine environment. 2 We refer to the Specification, filed October 8, 2014 ("Spec."); the Final Office Action, mailed December 15, 2016 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief, filed July 17, 2017 ("Br."); and the Examiner's Answer, mailed November 27, 2017 ("Ans."). 2 Appeal2018-003656 Application 14/509,749 REFERENCES The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Meng US 2004/0003316 Al Jan. 1, 2004 Hoogterp US 2005/0210218 Al Sept. 22, 2005 Debiez US 2006/0179325 Al Aug. 10, 2006 Marcy US 2008/0168183 Al July 10, 2008 Isaacson US 2010/0199216 Al Aug. 5, 2010 Logan US 2010/0250892 Al Sept. 30, 2010 Klapman US 2011/0113210 Al May 12, 2011 Le US 2012/0265959 Al Oct. 18, 2012 Andrey Mirtchovski & Latchesar Ionkov, K vmFS: Virtual Machine Partitioning For Clusters and Grids, 2007 Linux Symposium, Volume Two, at 59 (2007) (hereinafter "K vmF S "). REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1--4, 7-12, 15, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Logan, Le, and KvmFS. Final Act. 2-7. Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Logan, Le, KvmFS, and Official Notice evidenced by Isaacson, Hoogterp, Marcy, Klapman, Meng, and/or Debiez. Final Act. 7-9. Final Act. 2-7. ANALYSIS Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error. 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. 2-11) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to 3 Appeal2018-003656 Application 14/509,749 Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-7) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. Appellants argue Logan discloses how a virtual file system is displayed to a user interface but does not disclose providing a data utility with read and write access to the contents of the file system as required by the independent claims. Br. 6-7. The Examiner disagrees for two reasons. Ans. 3-5. According to the Examiner, the Specification "employs the terms 'file system interface' and 'file system view' interchangeably, and ... FIG. 3 provides an illustration of the file system interface/view which appears consistent with the manner in which file browser/explorer software present hierarchical file system data." Ans. 3--4. Thus, under a broad but reasonable interpretation of the disputed limitation consistent with the Specification, Logan's user interface teaches or suggests the argued emulation of a physical storage element by providing a file system interface to contents of a plurality of data volumes in a virtual machine environment. Id at 4. Secondly, "even if the claim did require the file system interface to be provided to a 'data utility' /software (not claimed), Logan would still teach the subject matter; disclosing . . . providing applications [with] access to the virtual file system and receiving file operations from the applications." Ans. 5 citing Logan ,r,r 24, 41, 44, 66. Appellants do not reply. Appellants' contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error. As found by the Examiner, Logan discloses the virtual file system is configured to communicate, not only using a graphical user interface as asserted by Appellants, but also using an application. Ans. 5, quoting Logan ,r,r 41, 66. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner in finding Logan teaches or suggests the argued file system interface. 4 Appeal2018-003656 Application 14/509,749 Appellants further contend Logan does not disclose a network file system (NFS) write request and, therefore, fails to teach or suggest the step of receiving a file system write request for the file system interface, wherein the file system write request comprises a write request in a format that is standard for issuing instructions to access data in the file system. Br. 7. The Examiner responds, finding Logan discloses translating file system operations to the standardized NFS format. Ans. 5-7. The Examiner further finds: [ A ]ny file system operation which alters the file system inherently requires "writes" to the file system, e.g. a file system cut & paste operation consists of a file system read ( read the contents of the 'cut' file system entry), a first file system write (write the contents to the 'paste' file system location), and a second file system write ( to delete the 'cut' file system entry from the original location). Id at 7. Thus, according to the Examiner, Logan's drag & drop operation modifies a file and is received in a format that is standard for issuing instructions as required by the claims. Id. Appellants do not reply. Appellants' contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error. In the absence of evidence or argument to the contrary, we agree with the Examiner in finding Logan's drag & drop operation teaches or suggests receiving a file system write request in a format that is standard for issuing instructions to access data and converted into an API command. Appellants further argue neither Le nor K vmFS cure the argued deficiencies of Logan. Because we disagree Logan is deficient, we do not address Appellants' argument that Le and K vmFS fail to rehabilitate the Examiner's rejections. 5 Appeal2018-003656 Application 14/509,749 For the reasons discussed above, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Logan, Le, and KvmFS together with the rejections of dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 which are not argued separately with particularity. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 6