Ex Parte Altman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 5, 2014

11513846 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GERALD ALTMAN
____________

Appeal 2011-0129521
Application 11/513,846
Technology Center 2167
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and ULRIKE
W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 34, 36, 37, 39, 40,
42, 44-47, 50-52, 54, and 56-65 (App. Br. 4). Examiner entered rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 This Appeal is related to Appeal No. 2011-009488, Application No.
10/914,481 (see App. Br. 3).
2 The Real Party in Interest is New Grounds LLC (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2011-012952
Application 11/513,846

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a time-addressable storage system and a
method. Claim 34 is representative and is reproduced in the Claims
Appendix of Appellant’s Brief.
Claims 34, 36, 37, 44, 45, 47, 54, 56, 60, and 62-65 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Green3
and Sekido.4
Claims 42, 46, 52, 58, and 61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Green, Sekido, and Freeman.5
Claims 39, 50, and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Green, Sekido, and Stent.6
Claims 40, 51, and 59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Green, Sekido, Bennett, and Voigt.7
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support
a conclusion of obviousness?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 1. Examiner finds that Green suggests the invention of, inter alia,
Appellant’s claim 34 with the exception of a “first set of attributes
specifi[ng] a date of the entry and [a] second set of attributes specifi[ng] a
time of day of [a] date of . . . entry” (Ans. 6).

3 Green et al., US 5,794,242, Aug. 11, 1998.
4 Sekido, US 6,311,193 B1, Oct. 30, 2001.
5 Freeman et al., US 2005/0125714 A1, Jun. 9, 2005.
6 Stent, US 5,778,359, Jul. 7, 1998.
7 Voigt et al., US 5,463,776, Oct. 31, 1995.
Appeal 2011-012952
Application 11/513,846

3
FF 2. Sekido’s Figure 11 is reproduced below:

Sekido’s “FIG. 11 illustrates a conversion map from logical addresses to
physical addresses” (Sekido, col. 4, ll. 6-7; Ans. 25).
FF 3. Sekido discloses that
As shown in FIG. 11, the conversion map holds stripe numbers
ST# in which the blocks for the individual logical addresses are
stored, block numbers BLK# in the stripes, and their time
stamps TS# in table form. If a logical address is given, the
actual physical address is found easily from ST# and BLK# by
referring to the table.
(Id. at col. 8, ll. 9-16; see generally Ans. 25.)
FF 4. While Sekido does suggest “logical address tag[s]” that contain a
time stamp for the purpose of validating blocks, Sekido makes clear that “the
logical address tags” are different than “logical addresses,” which are
associated with Sekido’s conversion map (see id. at col. 7, ll. 51-63 and col.
8, ll. 1-6).
FF 5. Examiner finds that the combination of Green and Sekido fails to
suggest that each record includes a plurality of attributes and relies on
Freeman to make up for these deficiencies in the combination of Green and
Sekido (see generally Ans. 18-21).
FF 6. Examiner finds that the combination of Green and Sekido fails to
suggest an input system operable to receive electronic files that were
Appeal 2011-012952
Application 11/513,846

4
generated by imaging a physical document and relies on Stent to make up
for this deficiency in the combination of Green and Sekido (id. at 21-23).
FF 7. Examiner finds that the combination of Green and Sekido fails to
suggest a time-addressable storage system that includes redundant storage
that includes a RAID system and relies on Voigt to make up for this
deficiency in the combination of Green and Sekido (id. at 23-25).
ANALYSIS
Based on the combination of Green and Sekido, Examiner concludes
that, at the time Appellant’s invention was made, it would have been prima
facie obvious to “modif[y] the system of Green with the date and time
specification from Sekido, in order to enable flexible data sheltering that
allows the update of snapshots” (Ans. 7). In this regard, Examiner
concludes that “[t]he look-up table depicted in [Sekido’s FIG. 11] can easily
be used to convert a time-stamp reference of a record to a physical address
reference of a record” (id. at 25). We are not persuaded.
As Appellant explains, “Sekido’s ‘time stamp’ is . . . not used to
physically locate data” (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 2 (“Sekido specifically
teaches that values other than its time stamps are used to determine a
physical location of data”); FF 2-3). “Sekido never contemplates taking a
time stamp ‘TS#’ as shown in [Sekido’s] Fig. 11, and using that time stamp
to determine either a ‘physical address’ or a ‘logical address’” (Reply Br. 4).
At best, Sekido suggests “logical address tag[s]” containing a time stamp for
the purpose of validating blocks, but Sekido makes clear that “the logical
address tags” are different than “logical addresses,” which are associated
with Sekido’s conversion map (FF 4; see App. Br. 14).
Appeal 2011-012952
Application 11/513,846

5
In sum, Examiner failed to establish an evidentiary basis on this
record to support a conclusion that the combination of Green and Sekido
suggest a logical block address that includes information specifying a date
and time of day as required by each of Appellant’s claims. Instead,
Examiner simply concludes that a logical block address specifying a date
and time of day can be derived from Sekido’s look-up table (Ans. 25).
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Examiner failed to establish that Freeman, Stent, or Voight make up
for the foregoing deficiencies in the combination of Green and Sekido (see
FF 5-7).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner fails to
support a conclusion of obviousness.
The rejection of claims 34, 36, 37, 44, 45, 47, 54, 56, 60, and 62-65
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Green and Sekido is reversed.
The rejection of claims 42, 46, 52, 58, and 61 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Green, Sekido, and
Freeman is reversed.
The rejection of claims 39, 50, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Green, Sekido, and Stent is reversed.
Appeal 2011-012952
Application 11/513,846

6
The rejection of claims 40, 51, and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Green, Sekido, Bennett, and Voigt is
reversed.

REVERSED

lp