Ex Parte Ahrens et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 14, 2011

11432067 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 14, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte MATTHEW A. AHRENS and MARK J. MAYBEE
________________

Appeal 2009-012401
Application 11/432,067
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012401
Application 11/432,067

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 – 12 and 14 – 20. Claim 13 is cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
1. A method for backing up a file system, comprising:
obtaining a first indirect block comprising a first block
pointer and a second block pointer, wherein first block
pointer references a first block and the second block
pointer references a second block, and wherein the first
block pointer comprises a first metaslab ID, a first offset,
a first birth time, and a first checksum associated with the
referenced first block, and the second block pointer
comprises a second metaslab ID, a second offset, a
second birth time, and a second checksum associated
with the referenced second block;
obtaining the first birth time from the first block pointer;
determining whether the first birth time is subsequent to a
time of a last backup; and
backing up a first block referenced by the first block
pointer, if the first birth time is subsequent to the time of
the last backup.
(App. Br. 12, Claims App’x).
Rejections and Appellants’ Contentions1
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred (1) in rejecting claims 1 –
7 and 14 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Curran
(US 2004/0268068 A1), Cameron (US 6,823,442 B1), and Bodnar (US

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-12 and 14- 20.
Appeal 2009-012401
Application 11/432,067

3
6,012,063) and (2) in rejecting claims 8 – 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Curran, Cameron, Bodnar, and Burton (Multiple
Generation Text Files using Overlapping Tree Structures, The Computer
Journal (1985) 28 (4): 414 – 16) because:
Claim 1 requires, in part, (i) obtain a first indirect block
comprising a first block pointer and a second block pointer; (ii)
wherein the first block pointer comprises a first metaslab ID, a
first offset, a first birth time, and a first checksum associated
with the referenced first block, and the second block pointer
comprises a second metaslab ID, a second offset, a second birth
time, and a second checksum associated with the referenced
second block. Thus, the checksum of a referenced block is
stored in a block pointer of the indirect block “hierarchically
above”[FN1: The checksum of the referenced block is stored in
a block pointer at a different level in the hierarchy than the
referenced block, where the level in which the checksum is
located is logically higher in the hierarchy as compared with the
referenced block.] the referenced block. Said another way, the
checksum of a first block is stored in a separate and distinct
block that references the first block, and not in the first block
itself.
. . . .
The cited portion of Bodnar teaches that a simple
checksum can be constructed to test a block of content for
changes/updates. See Bodnar, col. 6, ll. 7 – 9. The checksum
taught by Bodnar is either stored in the header of the block that
is being tested, or is constructed at the time of testing the block
by adding the units of the content together. See Bodnar, col. 6,
ll. 11 – 13 and 16 – 18. A complete reading of Bodnar reveals
that the aforementioned procedures are the only ways that
Bodnar discloses using a checksum. There is absolutely no
mention of storing the checksum of a block in a separate and
distinct block that references the content to be checked, as
required by independent claim 1.
Appeal 2009-012401
Application 11/432,067

4
(App. Br. 8 – 9).
Moreover, in the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner has
taken the position that Bondar [sic] discloses checksums and,
based on this only, one would be motivated to combine Bondar
[sic] with Curran to arrive at the claimed invention. See
Examiner’s Answer, pp. 12 – 13. Appellants disagree.
Specifically, the Examiner has overlooked the fact that the
attributes of Curran (see e.g., Curran, paragraph [0054] and 214
in Fig. 1) are file-level attributes and not block-level attributes.
In view of this mischaracterization of Curran, the purported
modification of Curran with the teachings of Bondar [sic]
would not arrive at the claimed invention, i.e., the modification
of the attributes to include a checksum would not result in the
claimed invention, which requires the checksums to be stored in
the block pointer.
(Reply Br. 4).
ISSUE
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Curran,
Cameron, and Bodnar teaches or suggests an indirect block comprising a
block pointer that references a block where the block pointer comprises a
checksum associated with the referenced block?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Curran,
Cameron, Bodnar, and Burton teaches or suggests an indirect block
comprising a block pointer that references a block where the block pointer
comprises a checksum associated with the referenced block?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
Appeal 2009-012401
Application 11/432,067

5
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 and (2) 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.
(1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Curran,
Cameron, and Bodnar teaches or suggests an indirect block comprising a
block pointer that references a block where the block pointer comprises a
checksum associated with the referenced block
We agree with the Examiner that “[i]t would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
modify the indirect block as taught by Curran in view of Cameron by
expanding the attributes to include a checksum associated with a data block
as taught by Bodnar in order to allow for the system to easily detect if
changes were made at the block level thus allowing for incremental block
level changes to take place” (Ans. 5; Fin. Rej. 5). Appellants’ newly
introduced argument that Curran’s attributes are “file-level” and not “block-
level” is not only untimely, see Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474
(BPAI 2010) (informative); it is also not persuasive.
Curran teaches that “[i]node field 214 identifies certain attributes
associated with a file [which] include, but are not limited to: date of last
modification; date of creation; file size; file type; parameters indicating read
or write access; various access permissions and access levels; compressed
status; encrypted status; hidden status; and status within a network”
(¶ [0054]) (emphasis added). Curran also depicts data blocks as being
associated with the file by virtue of the pointers or indirect pointers to those
Appeal 2009-012401
Application 11/432,067

6
blocks (figs. 1, 4, and 5). Given that these data blocks are associated with the
file, checksums for the data blocks (i.e., like those taught or suggested by
Bodnar) would also be associated with the file. As such, it would have been
obvious to an artisan with ordinary skill that Curran’s attributes field 214
could be extended to include block checksums as taught by Bodnar.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 – 7 and 14 – 20.
(2) Whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Curran,
Cameron, Bodnar, and Burton teaches or suggests an indirect block
comprising a block pointer that references a block where the block pointer
comprises a checksum associated with the referenced block
Appellants’ arguments with respect to this issue are not persuasive for
the reasons given above. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 – 12.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
claims 1 – 12 and 14 – 20 are unpatentable because the Examiner did not err
in finding:
1. that the combination of Curran, Cameron, and Bodnar teaches or
suggests an indirect block comprising a block pointer that references a block
where the block pointer comprises a checksum associated with the
referenced block and
2. that the combination of Curran, Cameron, Bodnar, and Burton
teaches or suggests an indirect block comprising a block pointer that
references a block where the block pointer comprises a checksum associated
with the referenced block.
Appeal 2009-012401
Application 11/432,067

7
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 – 12 and 14 –
20.
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

msc