International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2021

2019006206 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/465,418 03/21/2017 William W. Owen IBM1P467/
SJO920170002US1
1062
50548 7590 03/02/2021
ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- IBM
1155 N. 1st St.
Suite 105
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
EXAMINER
CHEONG, ANDREW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2138
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2021 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):
zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte WILLIAM W. OWEN, ERIK RUEGER,
and
CHRISTOF SCHMITT

Appeal 2019-006206
Application 15/465,418
Technology Center 2100

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION. Appeal
Br. 2.
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Final Rejection mailed November
15, 2018 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed April 11, 2019 (“Appeal
Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 28, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply
Brief filed August 19, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-006206
Application 15/465,418

2
INVENTION
The present invention relates to a method and system for “performing
object consolidation within a storage system” by “determining all data
blocks associated with [a] plurality of segment files within [an] object
storage system, and mapping all the data blocks associated with the plurality
of segment files to a single new file within the object storage system.” Title
(capitalization altered); Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the invention
and is reproduced below.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
identifying a plurality of segment files that have been
uploaded to an object storage system;
determining all data blocks associated with the plurality
of segment files within the object storage system; and
mapping all the data blocks associated with the plurality
of segment files to a single new file within the object storage
system.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Jiang et al. US 2003/0191745 A1 Oct. 9, 2003
Preslan et al. US 7,487,228 B1 Feb. 3, 2009
Kim US 2014/0351298 A1 Nov. 27, 2014
Palekar et al. US 9,348,532 B1 May 24, 2016
Dar et al. US 2017/0262463 A1 Sept. 14, 2017

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–6, 9, and 11–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kim in view of Dar. Final Act. 3–8.
Appeal 2019-006206
Application 15/465,418

3
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim in view of Dar and Palekar. Final Act. 8–9.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim in view of Dar, Preslan, and Jiang. Final Act. 10–12.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim in view of Dar, Preslan, Jiang, and Palekar. Final Act. 12–16.

OPINION
§ 103 Rejection of Claims 1, 4–9, and 11–20
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant argues Kim and Dar
do not teach or suggest “identifying a plurality of segment files that have
been uploaded to an object storage system,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 11–13;
Reply Br. 9–11. In particular, Appellant argues “Dar only generally
discloses that identifiers are uploaded to the store” but “does not teach the
segmentation of files, or the use of segment files,” and Dar teaches “a cache
memory that includes a dynamically sized inode file, where the inode file in
cache memory appears to store files and identifiers before they are uploaded
to a store” but “does not disclose the format or manner in which such
identifiers are stored on the store itself, much less the identification of such
stored identifiers within the store.” Appeal Br. 12–13 (citing Dar ¶¶ 31, 33–
34, Fig. 2); see also Reply Br. 9–10. With respect to both Dar and Kim,
Appellant argues
Dar only generally discloses that identifiers are uploaded to the
store, and Kim only discloses the segmentation of a file, which
does not teach that “the original file must first be uploaded” or
that “the segmented files need to be identified,” as alleged by the
Examiner [in the Answer], much less teach the specific
identification of “a plurality of segment files that have been
Appeal 2019-006206
Application 15/465,418

4
uploaded to an object storage system” (emphasis added), as
specifically claimed by appellant.

Reply Br. 10.
We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. Instead, we agree with
the Examiner’s findings. Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4. At the outset, we note
Appellant is addressing the references separately rather than the combination
of teachings proposed by the Examiner. Ans. 4; Final Act. 3–4. In
particular, Appellant argues “Dar[] fails to teach ‘identifying a plurality of
segment files that have been uploaded to an object storage system.’” See
Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 10. However, the Examiner relied on Kim for
the claimed “object storage system” and for the claimed “identifying a
plurality of segment files” within an object storage system, and relied on
Dar for the claimed uploading. See Final Act. 3–4 (citing Kim ¶¶ 46–47, 51,
Figs. 4–5; Dar ¶¶ 31, 33, Fig. 2); Ans. 4 (citing Kim ¶¶ 46–47). Where, as
here, a rejection is based on a combination of references, one cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). We agree with the Examiner that Kim teaches an object storage
system as claimed. Final Act. 3 (citing Kim Figs. 4–5); see Kim ¶ 49
(describing “a file system” in connection with Figure 4).
We also agree with the Examiner that Kim identifies a plurality of
segment files within Kim’s object storage system. Final Act. 3 (citing Kim
¶¶ 46–47, Fig. 4); Ans. 4. In particular, Kim uses inodes to identify segment
files, with (i) an inode indicative of a file ‘f2’ (see Kim’s Fig. 4) identifying
a plurality of segment files by identifying data blocks 1, 2, and 3 associated
with those segment files, and (ii) an inode indicative of a file ‘f3’ (see Fig. 4)
Appeal 2019-006206
Application 15/465,418

5
identifying a plurality of segment files by identifying data blocks 4, 5, and 6
associated with those segment files. See Kim ¶¶ 47 (describing file inodes
pointing to data blocks of respective files), 48–49 (describing Figure 4 and
providing that the identified data blocks of original files ‘f2’ and ‘f3’ are to
be merged into “[a] file 4 ‘f4’ that points to all the data blocks of the files 2
‘f2’ and 3 ‘f3’”).
As discussed supra, the Examiner’s rejection also relies on Dar for the
claimed uploading. See Final Act. 3–4 (citing Dar ¶¶ 31, 33, Fig. 2); Ans. 4.
Paragraph 31 of Dar describes “files and identifiers [that] are stored before
being uploaded to store 260” and a “relocator 240 [that] is requested to
upload files on store 260,” thereby teaching that files reach a storage system
(e.g., store 260) by being uploaded to the storage system. See Dar ¶ 31;
Ans. 4. Thus, since Dar teaches that files reach a storage system by being
uploaded to the system, and Kim’s storage system already contains a file’s
segment files (as discussed supra), a skilled artisan would recognize that a
file’s segment files have reached Kim’s storage system by being uploaded
thereto—since, in order for a file to be processed (e.g., read, segmented,
merged, etc.) in Kim’s storage system, the “file must first be uploaded” to
the system. Ans. 4. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination
of Kim and Dar teaches “identifying a plurality of segment files that have
been uploaded to an object storage system” as claimed. See id.
We additionally note Appellant’s argument—that “Dar . . . does not
disclose the format or manner in which such identifiers [that are stored in a
cache memory ‘before they are uploaded to a store’] are stored on the store
itself” (see Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 10)—does not address language recited
in claim 1. Claim 1 merely specifies “segment files that have been
Appeal 2019-006206
Application 15/465,418

6
uploaded” and the segment files being identified, which does not specify a
format or manner of storing identifiers or files in the storage system (as
Appellant argues), and does not provide any detail on the generically
claimed uploading.
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 11 and 20
reciting similar limitations and argued for the same reasons as claim 1, and
dependent claims 4–9 and 12–19 not separately argued. Appeal Br. 17–19.
§ 103 Rejection of Claim 2
Appellant contends “Kim only generally discloses the segmentation of
a file, which does not teach an ‘object storage system,’ much less that ‘each
of the plurality of segment files represents a portion of an object stored
within the object storage system,’” as recited in claim 2. Appeal Br. 14–15;
see also Reply Br. 12–13.
We do not agree. Rather, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Kim’s file “system storing blocks of data and using inodes that point to the
data blocks, where data blocks make up a file (i.e. object), is an object
storage system,” as recited in claim 2. Ans. 5 (citing Kim Figs. 1–2); see
also Final Act. 5 (citing Kim ¶ 47); Kim ¶¶ 44–45, 47, 49 (describing a “file
system” including files ‘f1,’ ‘f2,’ ‘f3,’ and ‘f4,’ and their respective data
blocks). As the Examiner explains, segment files referenced by an inode (as
illustrated in Kim’s Fig. 3, for example) represent portions of an object (e.g.,
Kim’s file ‘f1’ in Fig. 3) stored within Kim’s object storage system. See
Final Act. 5 (citing Kim ¶ 47 (describing Fig. 3)); Ans. 5; Kim ¶¶ 47, 68
(providing that the processed files can be files for analysis of a genome).
Appeal 2019-006206
Application 15/465,418

7
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 2.
§ 103 Rejection of Claim 3
Appellant contends
Dar only teaches the storing of identifiers in cache memory
before they are uploaded to a store, and does not disclose the
format or manner in which such identifiers are stored on the store
itself, much less the completion of uploading or the subsequent
identification of such stored identifiers within the store. Further,
Dar does not teach the segmentation of files, or the use of
resulting segment files. As a result, Dar only generally discloses
that identifiers are uploaded to the store, and Kim only discloses
the segmentation of a file, which does not teach that “the plurality
of segment files are identified in response to a completion of an
uploading of the plurality of segment files to the object storage
system" (emphasis added), as specifically claimed by appellant.

Appeal Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 15–16.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As discussed supra
with respect to claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Kim and Dar teaches identifying segment files that have been uploaded to an
object storage system. We also agree with the Examiner’s findings that Kim
teaches segment files of a file (e.g., data blocks of Kim’s original file ‘f1’)
being identified in the file system by the file’s inode that points to those data
blocks, and “[f]or the original file to be segmented and the inodes of the
segmented files to be generated (i.e. plurality of segment files are identified),
the uploading of the original, unsegmented file ‘f1’ . . . must be completed.”
Ans. 5 (citing Kim ¶¶ 46–47). That is, since Kim’s file system already
contains a file’s data blocks, and Dar teaches that a file may reach the file
Appeal 2019-006206
Application 15/465,418

8
system by being uploaded thereto, a skilled artisan would recognize that the
file’s data blocks have reached Kim’s file system by an uploading operation
that has been completed (since Kim’s data blocks currently reside in the file
system). See Ans. 5–6; Final Act. 5. Thus, the combination of Kim and Dar
teaches “a completion of an uploading of the plurality of segment files to the
object storage system” as recited in claim 3. See id. In addition, since
Kim’s data blocks are currently (i.e., after reaching/being uploaded to the
file system) identified (by, e.g., a file’s inode), we agree with the Examiner
that the combination of Kim and Dar teaches that segment files associated
with those data blocks are identified “in response to a completion of an
uploading” of those segment files, as claimed. Id. That is, since claim 3
does not specify how the segments are identified in response to a completion
of an uploading, or when, after uploading, are the segments identified, the
broadly claimed identification of segments “in response to a completion of
an uploading” reads on Kim’s identification of the segment files previously
placed in the file system.
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 3.
§ 103 Rejection of Claim 10
With respect to dependent claim 10, the Examiner finds the
combination of Kim and Dar teaches “identifying a completion of an
uploading of a descriptor file associated with a single object to the object
storage system, where the descriptor file identifies each of the plurality of
segment files as belonging to the single object within the object storage
system,” and “opening” and “reading the descriptor file to identify the
Appeal 2019-006206
Application 15/465,418

9
plurality of segment files,” as claimed. Ans. 6–7; Final Act. 12. In
particular, the Examiner finds Kim teaches “[an] original file ‘f1’ (i.e. single
object) is segmented into two files ‘f2’ and ‘f3,’ where each of the files have
respective inodes,” Dar teaches “the identifiers/inodes (i.e. descriptor file
identifying segment files) are uploaded to store 260,” and concludes the
combination of Kim and Dar teaches an “identifier/inode (i.e. descriptor file)
of file ‘f1’ (i.e. single object) is uploaded, then file ‘f1’ is segmented into
two files ‘f2’ and ‘f3,’ followed by generating respective inodes for ‘f2’ and
‘f3’ (i.e. ‘uploading of a descriptor file associated with a single object . . .’).”
Ans. 6–7 (emphases added) (citing Kim ¶¶ 46–47; Dar ¶¶ 31–32, Fig. 2).
Appellant argues that (i) “Dar only generally discloses that identifiers
are uploaded to the store” but “does not disclose . . . the completion of
uploading or the subsequent identification of such stored identifiers within
the store. . . . [and] does not teach the segmentation of files, or the use of
resulting segment files” and (ii) “Kim disclose[s] that an ‘original file . . . is
segmented into two files’” but does not teach “identifying a completion of
an uploading of a descriptor file associated with a single object to the object
storage system, where the descriptor file identifies each of the plurality of
segment files as belonging to the single object within the object storage
system” and “reading the descriptor file to identify the plurality of segment
files,” as claimed. Reply Br. 4–5; see also Appeal Br. 8–9.
We agree with Appellant. The cited portions of Dar describe “files
and identifiers [that] are stored before being uploaded to store 260” and a
“relocator 240 is requested to upload files on store 260.” See Dar ¶¶ 31–32.
Even if Dar’s identifier is considered a descriptor file, Dar merely teaches
that an identifier/descriptor file can be uploaded to store 260 (see Dar ¶ 31),
Appeal 2019-006206
Application 15/465,418

10
but does not teach that an identifier/descriptor file identifying segment files
is to be uploaded, and upon identifying completion of the identifier’s
uploading, the identifier/descriptor file is read to identify the segment files
referenced therein (as required by claim 10). Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 4–5.
The cited portions of Kim describe a file system including “an inode
indicative of the file 1 ‘f1’. . . . point[ing] to the plurality of data blocks [of
file ‘f1’],” and inodes indicative of two files ‘f2’ and ‘f3’ with “the inode of
the file 2 ‘f2’ point[ing] to the data blocks 1, 2 and 3’ of the file 1 ‘f1’, and
the inode of the file 3 . . . point[ing] to the data block 3”, 4 and 5 of the file 1
‘f1.’” See Kim ¶¶ 44, 47. Even if Kim’s inodes are considered descriptor
files, Kim does not teach (i) that an inode/descriptor file that identifies
segment files as belonging to a single object, is uploaded, and that (ii) upon
identifying completion of the inode’s uploading to the file system, the
inode/descriptor file is read to identify the segment files referenced therein
(as required by claim 10). Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 4–5. As the Examiner
has not identified sufficient evidence to support the rejection of the
“identifying” and “reading” limitations of claim 10, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 10.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–9 and 11–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
REVERSED.
Appeal 2019-006206
Application 15/465,418

11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 9,
11–20
103 Kim, Dar 1–6, 9,
11–20

7 103 Kim, Dar, Palekar 7
8 103 Kim, Dar, Preslan,
Jiang
8
10 103 Kim, Dar, Preslan,
Jiang, Palekar
10
Overall
Outcome
1–9,
11–20
10

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART