Vaijayanti Bharadwaj et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 28, 201914575280 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation