Ex Parte Ackerman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 5, 2016

12464785 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/464,785 05/12/2009
20551 7590 02/09/2016
THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP,
P.O. Box 1219
SANDY, UT 84091-1219
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steve F. Ackerman
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.
2883-005 2263
EXAMINER
JAKOVAC,RYANJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/09/2016 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):
patentdocket@tnw.com
rich@tnw.com
annette.fields@tnw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVE F. ACKERMAN, CHRISTOPHER S. HULL, and
RYANQ. STOKES
Appeal2014-003093
Application 12/464,785
Technology Center 2400
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 4--17, and 19-22. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to transmitting data between networked
computers. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
Appeal2014-003093
Application 12/464,785
1. A method for communicating a data file between a
plurality of networked computers, comprising:
requesting a data file consisting of a plurality of file
blocks to be transferred from a plurality of source computing
devices over a network to a destination computing device;
selecting at least one source computing device from the
plurality of source computing devices;
selecting a length of the plurality of file blocks based on
a type of the data file;
sending a hash signature for each of the plurality of file
blocks of the data file from the source computing device to the
destination computing device over the network;
determining which of the plurality of file blocks of the
data file are already located on the destination computing
device based on the hash signature of each file block located on
the destination computing device in order to reduce an amount
of network traffic used for transfer of file blocks over the
network;
transferring a remaining number of file blocks from the
plurality of source computing devices to the destination
computing device over the network; and
constructing the file on the destination computing device
from the plurality of file blocks.
Creme lie
Mondal
Goroff
References and Rejections
US 2008/0244204 Al
US 2010/0042790 Al
US 2010/0162039 Al
Oct. 2, 2008
Feb. 18,2010
June 24, 2010
Claims 1, 4--16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cremelie and Goroff.
2
Appeal2014-003093
Application 12/464,785
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Cremelie, Goroff, and Official Notice.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cremelie, Goroff, and Mondal.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4-9, and 20--22
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding "in order to reduce an amount of network traffic used for transfer
of file blocks over the network," as recited in independent claim 1, has no
patentable weight. 1
The Examiner finds "the [disputed claim limitation] language appears
merely descriptive and/or intended use type language \vhich is not afforded
much patentable weight." Ans. 5; see also Final Rej. 5. But the Examiner
does not cite any support for such finding, and does not map the disputed
claim limitation.
The Examiner does not adequately explain, and therefore it is unclear,
what "the language appears merely descriptive" means. Further, claim 1 is a
method claim. See claim 1. As a result, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner fails to show the disputed claim limitation has no patentable
weight because it constitutes an intended use statement.
1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal with respect to this group of claims, we do not
reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2014-003093
Application 12/464,785
Because the Examiner does not articulate a clear basis for the
rejection, and the Examiner fails to map the claim limitation "in order to
reduce an amount of network traffic used for transfer of file blocks over the
network," we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims for similar
reasons.
For similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 20, and corresponding dependent claims.2
Claims 10--17 and 19
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 10.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 14, 18-19), and
agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions on pages 4, 5
(first incomplete paragraph) of the Answer as our own. Therefore, we limit
our discussion to the following points for emphasis.
Appellants contend Cremelie does not teach "a file replication circuit
to request from the source computing device over the network the file blocks
whose corresponding hash signatures are not located on the destination
computing device to enable the selected file to be replicated at the
destination computing device," as recited in claim 10 (emphases added). See
App. Br. 18-19. Appellants contend Cremelie's paragraphs 28 and 29 do
2 Dependent claim 21 recites "[t]he method as in claim 10." Claim 21.
Because claim 10 is a system claim, we assume the recitation of claim 10
constitutes a typographical error: dependent claim 21 depends from the
method claim 20, not the system claim 10.
4
Appeal2014-003093
Application 12/464,785
not teach constructing a file on a destination computer device. See App. Br.
18-19, 14.
Appellants fail to show reversible error. In response to Appellants'
arguments, the Examiner provides comprehensive findings showing
Cremelie teaches the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 4--5. For example,
the Examiner cites Cremelie's paragraphs 5-8 and 22-30 and provides
detailed explanation as to why Cremelie teaches the disputed claim
limitation. Further, the Examiner finds Cremelie's "[r]eplication includes
re-assembling the files (i-fi-f 5-6, 22-25)." and "[o]ne of ordinary skill in the
art would understand assembling the file to be an example of constructing
the file." Ans. 4. Appellants fail to adequately respond to such findings and
therefore, fail to show specific fault in the Examiner's findings. See In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the
function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail
than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the
prior art.").
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10, and
corresponding dependent claims for similar reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--9 and 20-22 is
reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10-17 and 19 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).
5
Appeal2014-003093
Application 12/464,785
Kme
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6