Vaijayanti Bharadwaj et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 28, 2019

14575280 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2019)

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.
14/575,280 12/18/2014 Vaijayanti Bharadwaj 007170.0973U1 1212
135983 7590 08/28/2019
FisherBroyles, LLP - Veritas Technologies
Veritas Technologies, LLC
222 South Main St., 5th Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
EXAMINER
SAMARA, HUSAM TURKI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2019 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):
docketing@fisherbroyles.com
vrts-docketing@fisherbroyles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte VAIJAYANTI BHARADWAJ, CHIRAG DALAL, and
PRACHI NAYYAR
____________________

Appeal 2018-009145
Application 14/575,2801
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 According to Appellants, Veritas Technologies, LLC is the real party in
interest. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2018-009145
Application 14/575,280

2
Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim
The disclosure relates to a computer-implemented method for
collecting data relating to an e-discovery request. Abstract. The claimed
method is purposed to analyze data on a remote computing system to satisfy
e-discovery requests by interfacing with a locally mounted virtual disk so as
not to interfering with the operations of the remote computing system.
Independent claim 1 below is exemplary of the disclosed invention,
and reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for collecting
data, at least a portion of the method being performed by a
computing device comprising at least one processor, the
method comprising:
identifying an e-discovery request to process, through
an e-discovery platform managed by a legal service provider,
content of a client involved in the e-discovery request,
wherein:
the content is stored at a remote computing system that
is managed by a managed service provider that stores the
content at the remote computing system on behalf of the
client;
the e-discovery platform comprises the computing
device;
in response to the e-discovery request, requesting,
from the remote computing system, a backup of a virtual disk
dedicated to servicing the client;
receiving, by the computing device, the backup of the
virtual disk from the remote computing system;
locally mounting, at the computing device, the backup
of the virtual disk;
executing an e-discovery application on the locally
mounted backup of the virtual disk to process the content,
wherein:
the e-discovery application comprises a backup and
recovery module capable of analyzing and extracting data
from backups; executing the e-discovery application
Appeal 2018-009145
Application 14/575,280

3
comprises using the backup and recovery module to analyze
and extract data from the locally mounted backup of the
virtual disk in accordance with one or more specifications
included in the e-discovery request.
Independent claims 14 and 20 recite, respectively, a system and
a storage medium having limitations commensurate with the
limitations recited in claim 1. Dependent claims 2–13 and 15–19 each
incorporate the limitations of their respective independent claims.
Appellants argue claims 2, 10, and 15 separately from claim 1. App.
Br. 13; 20–21.
Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1–10 and 12–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over the combination of Brockway et al. (US
2011/0093471 A1; published Apr. 21, 2011) (hereinafter “Brockway”),
Chawla et al. (US 2011/0185355 A1; published July 28, 2011) (hereinafter
“Chawla”), Monckton et al. (US 8,099,391 B1, issued Jan. 17, 2012) and
Xing et al. (US 8,751,515 B1; issued June 10, 2014) (hereinafter “Xing”).
The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Brockway, Chawla, Monkton, Xing, and Buchman et al. (US
8,832,030 B1; issued Sept. 9, 2014) (hereinafter “Buchman”).

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 2–34) in light
of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred (App. Br. 11–21).
Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s Answer to Appellants’
contentions (Ans. 3–6) and the Appellants’ Reply Brief. Appellants contend
that the claimed features of (a) “in response to [an] e-discovery request, (1)
Appeal 2018-009145
Application 14/575,280

4
requesting, (2) receiving, and (3) locally mounting a backup of a virtual disk
dedicated to servicing a client [involved in the e-discovery request]”
(hereinafter, “limitation group (a)”); and (b) (1) an “e-discovery application”
with “a backup and recovery module capable of analyzing and extracting
data from backups,” or (2) executing such an e-discovery application on a
“locally mounted backup of [a] virtual disk” (hereinafter, “limitation group
(b)”) are not taught or suggested by the combination of Brockway, Chawla,
Monckton, and Xing as applied in the Examiner’s rejection. We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ contentions of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner.
More specifically, with respect to limitation group (a), the Examiner
explains that Brockway teaches an e-discovery system that does not
explicitly disclose requesting, receiving, and locally mounting a backup of a
virtual disk in response to an e-discovery request. Ans. 3. However, the
Examiner relies upon Chawla for mounting a virtual disk to access remotely
stored content, and upon Monckton for virtual disk backups. Id. at 3–4.
Appellants argue that Chawla requests data located on a virtual disk,
but does not request a backup of the virtual disk itself. App. Br. 16.
Appellants also argue that Chawla does not teach a request in response to an
e-discovery request. Id. However, the Examiner has relied on Monckton for
virtual disk backups, and on Brockway for responding to an e-discovery
request. Ans. 3–4. Appellants further argue that Monckton arguably creates
Appeal 2018-009145
Application 14/575,280

5
virtual backups, but does not disclose a system that requests a virtual disk
backup in order to locally mount the backup the virtual disk in response to
an e-discovery request. App. Br. 17. However, the Examiner has relied on
Chawla for requesting data by locally mounting a virtual disk, and on
Brockway for responding to an e-discovery request. Id. at 3–4. Here,
Appellants have merely argued the individual references separately, rather
than arguing that the combination of the teachings of the references fairly
teaches or suggests the claimed invention. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is
based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly,
Appellants have not provided a persuasive argument that the Examiner’s
rejection is in error.
Appellants’ arguments with respect to limitation group (b) also argue
the individual references separately. Appellants argue that Brockway, by
itself, fails to teach or suggest an e-discovery application with a backup and
recovery module. Reply Br. 3. However, the Examiner admits that
Brockway does not provide that teaching, instead relying on the combination
of the teachings and suggestions of Chawla (mounting a virtual disk),
Monckton (virtual disk backups), and Xing (virtual disk extractions).
Ans. 4. Similarly, Appellants fault the teachings of Chawla, Monckton, and
Xing for lacking an “e-discovery application;” however, the Examiner has
relied on Brockway for teaching or suggestion an e-discovery application.
App. Br. 19; Ans. 4–5. Accordingly, Appellants have not provided a
persuasive argument that the Examiner’s rejection is in error.
Appeal 2018-009145
Application 14/575,280

6
Accordingly, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1. Since the Examiner relies on the identical argument for
finding the contested limitation obvious in claims 3–9, 12–14, and 16–20
(App. Br. 13; 20–21), Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting those claims as well.
With respect to claims 2 and 15, Appellants argue that Brockway
filters search results relevant to an e-discovery request, but not from a
backup of a virtual disk, whereas Monckton creates a backup of a virtual
disk, but not filtering the search results in a manner relevant to an e-
discovery request. App. Br. 20. However, Appellants argue only that each
individual reference does not disclose the entirety of the claimed invention,
and do not address what the combined references teach or suggest.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided a persuasive argument that the
Examiner’s rejection is in error.
With respect to claim 10, Appellants argue that neither Chawla nor
Monckton disclose creating a backup of a virtual disk in response to an e-
discovery request. However, Appellants argue only that each individual
reference does not disclose the entirety of the claimed invention, and do not
address what the combined references teach or suggest. Furthermore, the
person of ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided a persuasive argument that the
Examiner’s rejection is in error.
With respect to the rejection of claim 11 over the base combination,
further in view of Buchman, Appellants have not separately argued claim 11.
Appeal 2018-009145
Application 14/575,280

7
We decide the outcome of claim 11 on the same basis as claim 10 from
which claim 11 depends. Therefore, Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1–10 and 12–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over the base combination of Brockway, Chawla, Monckton, and Xing, and
in rejecting claim 11 over the base combination, further in view of
Buchman.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED