Ex Parte Bakre et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2017

14318460 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2017)

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.
14/318,460 06/27/2014 Ajay Bakre 124.P01-008918.02.US.0RG 3913
117203 7590
Gilliam IP PLLC (NetApp)
7200 N. Mopac
Suite 440
Austin, TX 78731
EXAMINER
MCQUITERY, DIEDRA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2017 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):
u spto @ gilliamip .com
legalip @ netapp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AJAY BAKRE, DHRUVA KRISHNAMURTHY,
KARTHEEK MUTHYALA, CHHAVI SHARMA,
and RUKMA TALWADKER
Appeal 2017-007299
Application 14/318,460
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—9, and 21—31. Claims 3 and 10—20 were
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is NetApp, Inc. (App.
Br. 3).
Appeal 2017-007299
Application 14/318,460
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to systems, methods, and computer
program products that provide a single unified namespace by which clients
refer to data located on different storage systems (Spec. 116). Exemplary
claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for performing a data transaction in a network
storage system, the method comprising:
receiving, from a client system, a first data transaction
request including a first data object identifier of a first data
object, wherein the first data object identifier conforms to a first
namespace protocol;
determining a storage location for the first data object by,
accessing a distributed database comprising
multiple key value entries that are each keyed by one of
multiple mutually distinct data object identifiers, wherein
each of the individual key value entries associates a key in
the form of a respective one of the data object identifiers
with a value comprising,
a storage device identifier;
a namespace identifier; and
a data object identifier conforming to a
second namespace protocol,
wherein the first namespace protocol and the second
namespace protocol are different; and
determining an association between a second data
object identifier and the first data object identifier by
querying the distributed database using a first key that
includes the first data object identifier, wherein said
querying comprises traversing entries within the
distributed database to locate a first value corresponding
to the first key, wherein the first value includes an
identifier of a storage device, a namespace identifier, and
the second data object identifier; and
2
Appeal 2017-007299
Application 14/318,460
forwarding a second data transaction request including the
second data object identifier to the storage device based on the
determined association between the second data object identifier
and the first data object identifier.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4—9, and 21—31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Zimran et al. (US 2007/0055703 Al; published Mar. 8,
2007) (“Zimran”) and Hardin et al. (US 2013/0268644 Al; published Oct.
10, 2013) (“Hardin”) (see Final Act. 3-9).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Briefs that the Examiner has erred. We are unpersuaded by
Appellants’ contentions and concur with the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions as explained below.
Independent Claims 1, 21, and 29
Appellants contend the combination of cited references fails to teach
or suggest, “a distributed database comprising . . . key value entries” that
each associate an “[object identifier key]” with “a value comprising, a
storage device identifier; a namespace identifier; and a data object
identifier,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 21 and 29
(see App. Br. 9). More specifically, Appellants argue Zimran’s namespace
tree structure fails to teach the claimed “database comprising . . . key value
entries” because the namespace tree structure merely includes pairwise
associations between input pathnames (e.g., client-server network
3
Appeal 2017-007299
Application 14/318,460
pathnames) and translated pathnames (e.g., backend network attached
storage (“NAS”) network pathnames), and Zimran fails to teach or suggest
that a translated pathname includes a namespace identifier in addition to a
storage device identifier and a data object identifier (see App. Br. 10-11; see
also Reply Br. 5—6). Appellants also argue Zimran’s input pathname fails to
teach the claimed “key” because Appellants’ claim language and
Specification require that the claimed key be “in the form of’ a data object
identifier, whereas Zimran’s input pathname merely includes a data object
identifier (e.g., a namespace-specific directory path concluding with a file
name) in addition to other information (see Reply Br. 3—5). Appellants
further argue Hardin merely describes generating an object identifier using a
hash of data object characteristics, and Hardin fails to teach or suggest the
claimed “key value entries” (App. Br. 11—12).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention. Zimran teaches a
namespace server that provides a unified client-server network namespace to
clients using different file access protocols to access files in different file
servers in a NAS network workspace (see Zimran 17). The namespace
server permits a namespace for client access to file servers to be different
from the actual namespace used by the file servers (see Zimran 144). As the
Examiner correctly found, the namespace server receives a client request,
recognizes a client-server network pathname in a user request (e.g.,
“\\JOHN\C\Dl\Fl”), uses the client-server network pathname in a
namespace tree name lookup to trace the pathname through a namespace tree
data structure, and translates the client-server network pathname into a
corresponding backend NAS network pathname (e.g., “\\DICK\A\D1\F1”)
(see Ans. 3 (citing Zimran || 50-52, 54—56, 59-62, 69, 95)). We agree with
4
Appeal 2017-007299
Application 14/318,460
the Examiner that Zimran teaches accessing a database comprising key-
value entries (i.e., namespace tree data structure), where a key-value entry
includes a key in the form of a data object identifier (i.e., client-server
network pathname), and a value (i.e., NAS network pathname) that includes
a namespace identifier (e.g., “WDICK”), a device identifier (e.g., “\A”), and a
data object identifier (e.g., “\D1\F1”) (see id.). As the Examiner also
correctly found, Hardin teaches a physical identifier that is a hash function
of a storage device identifier (see Ans. 4 (citing Hardin || 8—10, 30-33, 37—
38, 106—111)). Thus, we also agree with the Examiner that Hardin teaches a
storage device identifier.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that Zimran’s backend
NAS network pathname fails to teach or suggest the claimed “value
comprising ... a namespace identifier” because Zimran fails to teach or
suggest that the backend NAS network pathname includes a namespace
identifier. As previously discussed, the backend NAS network pathname
identifies, inter alia, the namespace used by the backend file server as
opposed to the namespace used by the client (e.g., “WDICK” as opposed to
“WJOHN”), and thus, the backend NAS network pathname does include a
namespace identifier.
Further, Appellants’ argument that Zimran’s input pathname fails to
teach the claimed “key” because Zimran’s input pathname merely includes a
data object identifier is also not persuasive. The mere recitation of the
phrase “in the form of’ does not limit the claimed “key” as requiring the key
to solely include the data object identifier and not include any other
information. Such an interpretation of the claimed “key” is not
5
Appeal 2017-007299
Application 14/318,460
commensurate with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed
“key” in light of Appellants’ Specification.
Appellants’ argument that Hardin fails to teach or suggest the claimed
“key value entries” does not address the combination of cited references, and
thus, is not persuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner did not rely solely
on Hardin as teaching the claimed “key value entries.” Instead, as
previously described above, the Examiner relied on the combination of
Zimran and Hardin. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332—33 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
Appellants further contend the combination of cited references also
fails to teach or suggest “traversing entries within [a] distributed database to
locate a first value corresponding to [a data object identifier] key, wherein
the first value includes an identifier of a storage device, a namespace
identifier, and [a] second data object identifier,” as recited in claim 1, and
similarly recited in claims 21 and 29 (see App. Br. 12). More specifically,
Appellants argue Hardin fails to teach or suggest traversing a consistent
namespace using a key that is a data object identifier (see App. Br. 12—13).
Additionally, Appellants reference their previous argument with respect to
the claimed “key value entries” (see App. Br. 13).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Appellants’ argument
that Hardin fails to teach or suggest the claimed “traversing entries within
[a] distributed database to locate a first value corresponding to [a data object
identifier] key” fails to address Zimran because the Examiner relied on the
combination of Zimran and Hardin (as opposed to solely Hardin) as teaching
6
Appeal 2017-007299
Application 14/318,460
or suggesting the aforementioned claim limitation. As the Examiner
correctly found, Zimran teaches traversing a namespace tree data structure
for an entry corresponding a client-server network pathname (see Ans. 5; see
also Zimran || 54, 95). Appellants’ argument regarding Hardin does not
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s above finding regarding Zimran.
Further, Appellants’ argument regarding the claimed “key value entries” is
not persuasive for the reasons previously discussed.
Appellants also contend the Examiner’s obviousness analysis does not
include sufficient articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to
support the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness (see App. Br. 13—
14). However, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of Examiner error
because Appellants do not specifically identify any error in the Examiner’s
obviousness analysis, which is based on the combination of references and
supported by some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning.
Indeed, the Supreme Court made clear that when considering obviousness,
“the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited
references teaches or suggests all the elements of claims 1,21, and 29.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1,21, and 29 under
35U.S.C. § 103.
7
Appeal 2017-007299
Application 14/318,460
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims (see App. Br. 9—14). We therefore sustain their rejections for the
reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1,21, and 29.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—9, and 21—31
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8