Ex Parte Wade et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2016

12849006 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/849,006 08/02/2010
76444 7590
Setter Roche LLP
14694 Orchard Parkway
Building A, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80023
04/28/2016
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.
857.0006 7002
EXAMINER
CAO, PHUONG THAO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2016 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):
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
Appeal2014-007538
Application 12/849,006
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-007538
Application 12/849,006
STATE~v1ENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to providing a file system view of a storage
environment. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of operating a data identification system for
providing a file system view of a storage environment, the
method comprising:
identifying a plurality of processing elements contained
within the storage environment;
identifying a plurality of virtual processing elements
contained within the plurality of processing elements;
identifying a plurality of virtual storage elements
contained within the plurality of virtual processing elements;
identifying contents of the plurality of virtual storage
elements;
generating the file system view of the storage
environment, wherein the file system view comprises the
plurality of processing elements, the plurality of virtual
processing elements, the plurality of virtual storage elements,
and the contents of the plurality of virtual storage elements
arranged in a hierarchical order; and
providing the file system view of the storage environment.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hiltgen et al.
Shah et al.
US 2008/0155169 Al
US 7,669,020 Bl
2
June 26, 2008
Feb.23,2010
Appeal2014-007538
Application 12/849,006
Edwards US 8,171,201 Bl
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
~v1ay 1, 2012
Claims 1-6, 9-16, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Edwards and Shah. Final Act. 7-18.
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Edwards, Shah, and Hiltgen. Final Act. 18-20.
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
1. Edwards's identifying, locating, and determining statistics about
virtual machines and the corresponding drives within a network
browser does not teach generating a file system view of the contents
of the plurality of virtual storage elements as required by claim 1.
App. Br. 6.
2. Shah's single host that identifies directories and files does not teach
identifying contents of the plurality of virtual storage elements that are
contained within a plurality of processing elements as required by
claim 1. App. Br. 6-7.
3. Shah's ability to display by drilling down from a single host to lower
files and directories does not teach a file system view comprising a
plurality of processing elements arranged in hierarchical order as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 7.
4. In connection with claim 1, it would not have been obvious to
combine Edwards's high-level virtual machine optimization and/or
storage reclamation solution with Shah's backup management of
lower-level files and directories because Edwards does not require
3
Appeal2014-007538
Application 12/849,006
looking at lower level files as taught by Shah in accomplishing the
resizing and optimization taught by Edwards. App. Br. 7-8.
5. Neither (i) Edwards's illustrating names and information about host
servers, virtual machines, and attached storage nor (ii) Shah's user
interface for a parent-child hierarchy that allows a user to drill down
from higher levels to the lower files and directories teaches or
suggests interpreting names and attributes for the contents of the
plurality of virtual storage elements as required by claim 3. App. Br.
8.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-9)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-3), the issues presented on appeal are whether
the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with 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 (Final Act. 7-20)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 5-9) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
4
Appeal2014-007538
Application 12/849,006
In connection with contention 1, Appellants argue Edwards does not
teach "generating a file view of contents of the plurality of virtual storage
elements" because Edwards fails to identify the contents of the plurality of
virtual storage elements, instead using a network browser that locates virtual
processing elements, such as virtual machines running on one or more real
processing elements or servers, and displaying statistics about these virtual
machines. App. Br. 6. The Examiner responds by finding a file system view
or a system view can be interpreted as any displayed information regarding
one or more elements/components of a system, which can be displayed on
one or more user interfaces (windows or pages). Ans. 2. The Examiner
further finds Edwards teaches a network browser which can display folder
names and symbolic links to virtual machines that reside on host servers and
a user interface for displaying/outputting status information with respect to
the virtual environment, wherein, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation, a display/view ofVMDKs includes and therefore teaches or
suggests the disputed file system view. Ans. 2.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because Appellants fail to
address the Examiner's findings but, rather, argue the references
individually. In particular, Appellants' argument asserting that Edwards does
not teach the disputed limitation of generating the file system view of the
plurality of virtual storage elements due to the lack of identification of
contents within the virtual storage elements is unpersuasive because the
Examiner relies on Shah, not Edwards, for teaching the disputed limitation
(see Ans. 2 and Shah: Fig. 5, col. 6, 1. 50-col. 7, 1. 8). The Examiner is not
required to find all features (such as identifying the contents of the plurality
of virtual storage elements) within a single reference (i.e., Edwards) when,
5
Appeal2014-007538
Application 12/849,006
as here, the rejection is based on a combination of references (i.e., Edwards
and Shah). The test for obviousness does not require that the claimed
invention be suggested in any one of the references. See In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Appellants'
contention 1 is unpersuasive of Examiner error.
In connection with contention 2, Appellants argue Shah does not teach
"identifying contents of the plurality of virtual storage elements" because
Shah identifies files and directories on a single host rather than spread out
amongst a plurality of hosts or processing elements. App Br. 6-7. The
Examiner responds by finding Shah is combined with Edwards "to teach
identifying contents of the plurality of virtual storage elements (see Fig. 5)
wherein files and directories associated [with] virtual volumes are
interpreted as contents of the plurality of virtual storage elements." Ans. 4.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because, as argued in
connection with contention 1, it is an attack on the references individually
when the rejection is based on the combination of Edwards and Shah, not
Shah alone. In particular, Appellants fail to address the Examiner's finding
that Shah teaches identifying contents of the plurality of virtual storage
elements on a single host (see Fig. 5, col. 6, 1. 50-col. 7, 1. 8 of Shah) and
Edwards, not the argued Shah reference, teaches the disputed step of
identifying a plurality of virtual storage elements contained within the
plurality of virtual processing elements (see col. 10, 1. 1-5 of Edwards).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner in finding the combination of
Edwards and Shah teaches the disputed limitations. As explained supra,
nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
6
Appeal2014-007538
Application 12/849,006
disclosures. Accordingly, Appellants' contention 2 is unpersuasive of
Examiner error.
In connection with contention 3, Appellants argue Shah does not teach
a file system view which comprises the plurality of processing elements
arranged in hierarchical order because Shah discloses only the ability of a
single host to drill down to lower files and directories, not a plurality of
processing elements. App. Br. 7. The Examiner responds by finding Shah's
teaching of generating a parent-child hierarchy for presenting all elements of
an environment in a hierarchical view (see Fig. 5, col. 6, 1. 50-col. 7, 1. 8 of
Shah) in combination with Edwards' teaching of identifying a plurality of
processing elements in the system (see col. 16, 11. 9--10 of Edwards) teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation, wherein Edwards is modified by Shah to
generate a hierarchical view comprising the plurality of processing elements.
Ans. 5---6.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because Appellants again fail to
address the Examiner's findings. Instead, Appellants argue the references
individually, asserting Shah does not teach the disputed plurality of
processing elements due to Shah's use of a single host despite the
Examiner's reliance on Edwards to teach a plurality of processing elements.
Accordingly, Appellant's contention 3 is unpersuasive of Examiner error.
In connection with contention 4, Appellants argue it would not have
been obvious to combine Edwards's high-level virtual machine optimization
and/or storage reclamation solution with Shah's backup management of
lower-level files and directories because Edwards does not require looking at
lower level files as taught by Shah in accomplishing the resizing and
optimization taught by Edwards. App. Br. 7-8. The Examiner responds by
7
Appeal2014-007538
Application 12/849,006
finding it would have been obvious to inco1 vorate Shah's teaching of
looking to files and directories with Edwards' system for presenting
components/ elements of a computing system environment in a hierarchical
order as an effective way to display/view/manage elements/components
because a hierarchical structure is commonly used in the art to display
elements/components and their relationships. Ans. 5---6.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner has
articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Furthermore, Appellants fail to provide persuasive evidence or explanation
showing that the Examiner's asserted combination is anything other than the
mere substitution of one element (a hierarchical view) for another known in
the field (presenting components of a computing system environment in
another way) and is a combination of familiar elements yielding no more
than predictable results. See KSR at 416-17. Such a combination is itself a
sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support a finding of
obviousness. Accordingly, Appellants' contention 4 is unpersuasive of
Examiner error.
For the reasons discussed supra, Appellants' contentions of error in
connection with the rejection of claim 1 are unpersuasive. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and, for the same reasons, the
rejection of independent claims 11 and 21, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Edwards and Shah, together with the rejections of
dependent claims 2, 4--10, 12, and 14--20, which are not separately argued.
8
Appeal2014-007538
Application 12/849,006
In connection with contention 5, Appellants argue neither Edwards's
illustrating names and information about host servers, virtual machines, and
attached storage nor Shah's user interface for a parent-child hierarchy to drill
down from higher levels to the lower files and directories teach interpreting
names and attributes for the contents of the plurality of virtual storage
elements as required by dependent claims 3 and 13. App. Br. 8. The
Examiner responds by finding Shah teaches virtual volume files (see Shah,
col. 7, 1. 19and11. 35-37) wherein the virtual volume files comprise a
header (e.g., identifying the file) and volume data (see Shah, col. 7, 1. 45-
col. 8, 1. 3), which teaches the disputed limitations. Ans. 6-7.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because it amounts to little more
than a naked assertion that the disputed claim element is not found in the
prior art. See 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."); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art."). In particular, Appellants fail to provide
sufficient evidence or a persuasive line of reasoning rebutting the
Examiner's finding that Shah's virtual volume files teaches the plurality of
virtual storage elements and Shah's header and volume data teaches
interpreting names and attributes of the content. That is, Appellants do not
explain why the claimed plurality of virtual storage elements and
interpretation of names and attributes are not equivalent to and taught by
Shah's virtual volume files and header and volume data. Accordingly,
9
Appeal2014-007538
Application 12/849,006
Appellants' contention 5 is unpersuasive of Examiner error and we sustain
the rejection of claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Edwards and Shah.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-21 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
10