11670539 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2013)

Ex Parte Bhattacharya et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 17, 2013

11670539 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2013)

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. 11/670,539 02/02/2007 Suparna Bhattacharya BEA9-2006-0041-US1 7322 49056 7590 05/17/2013 LIEBERMAN & BRANDSDORFER, LLC 802 STILL CREEK LANE GAITHERSBURG, MD 20878 EXAMINER HOCKER, JOHN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2158 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/17/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte SUPARNA BHATTACHARYA, MINGMING CAO, DAVID J. KLEIKAMP, and THEODORE Y.T. TSO _____________ Appeal 2010-009741 Application 11/670,539 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before DAVID M. KOHUT, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-009741 Application 11/670,539 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method, system, and article of manufacture for persistent pre-allocation of data blocks in a file system. Spec. 5. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A computer implemented method for persistent pre-allocation of data blocks comprising: maintaining a first i-node for a file to manage file operations on a file server, said first i-node having initialized blocks; associating said first i-node with a second i-node, including creating said second i-node for said file, establishing a relationship between primary and secondary nodes for the file, and allocating pre- allocated blocks into the second i-node; and using a processor for transferring corresponding blocks from said second i-node to said first i-node responsive to a write operation requiring non-initialized blocks in a pre-allocated range of blocks, wherein said block transfer includes a contiguous block allocation for said file. REFERENCE Schmuck US 5,960,446 Sep. 28, 1999 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Schmuck. Ans. 5-7. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schmuck. Ans. 5-7. Appeal 2010-009741 Application 11/670,539 3 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Schmuck discloses (under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)) or teaches or suggest (under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)) “using a processor for transferring corresponding blocks from said second i-node to said first i-node responsive to a write operation requiring non-initialized blocks in a pre-allocated range of blocks, wherein said block transfer includes a contiguous block allocation for said file,” as recited by independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 7, 13, and 19?1 ANALYSIS Claims 1-19 - §102(b) Rejection Independent claim 1 recites “using a processor for transferring corresponding blocks from said second i-node to said first i-node responsive to a write operation requiring non-initialized blocks in a pre-allocated range of blocks, wherein said block transfer includes a contiguous block allocation for said file.” Independent claims 7, 13, and 19 contain a similar limitation. Claims 2-6 are dependent upon claim 1; claims 8-12 are dependent upon claim 7; and claims 14- 18 are dependent upon claim 13. The Examiner initially finds that Schmuck describes a Virtual Shared Disk program that allows multiple remote nodes to access a disk device through a first server node, and that, when the first server node fails, a transparent switchover is performed to a secondary server node, which allows the disk device to be accessed by the multiple remote nodes. Ans. 6-7 (citing Schmuck 2:52 – 3:12). The 1 Appellants make additional arguments with respect to claims 1-19. App. Br. 4- 21; Reply Br. 1-5. However, we do not address the additional issues as the stated issue is dispositive of the Appeal. Appeal 2010-009741 Application 11/670,539 4 Examiner also refers to a portion of Schmuck that describes an allocation manager that assists in allocating blocks of the disk device for the various nodes that require access to the disk device. Ans. 9 (citing Schmuck 19:33-40). Appellants contend that Schmuck’s teaching of accessing shared disks through a secondary server node when a primary server node fails does not describe allocating pre-allocated blocks of a contiguous range of a second i-node to a first i-node in response to a write operation. App. Br. 5. Appellants specifically argue that the transparent switchover from a first server node to a second server node to provide access to a disk device is not a transfer of blocks from the second i-node to the first i-node in response to a write operation. App. Br. 5. We agree with Appellants. While the Examiner finds that the server switchover in Schmuck allows a database to be accessed by the new server (Ans. 6-7), the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence to show, nor do we find, that blocks are transferred from one i- node to another i-node. See Schmuck, col. 39, ll. 10-42. Additionally, while the Examiner finds that an allocation manager allocates blocks for various nodes that require access (Ans. 9), the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence to show, nor do we find, that the blocks are actually transferred from one i-node to another, as required by independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 19. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned supra, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 1-19 - §103(a) Rejection Alternatively, the Examiner finds that although every limitation may not be found verbatim in Schmuck “the concept as a whole is obvious in view of the prior art.” Ans. 7. Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness because the Examiner did not “determine the scope and Appeal 2010-009741 Application 11/670,539 5 contents of the prior art and then ascertain the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.” App. Br. 12 (citing “Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) (holding that under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined)”). We agree with Appellants. App. Br. 11-12. The Examiner has not set forth, nor do we find, sufficient rationale as to why one of ordinary skill in the art using common sense and knowledge gleaned from Schmuck’s system would find it obvious to transfer pre-allocated blocks from a second i-node to a first i-node in response to a write operation. Thus, for the reasons set forth supra, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that Schmuck discloses (under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)) or teaches or suggest (under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)) “using a processor for transferring corresponding blocks from said second i-node to said first i-node responsive to a write operation requiring non-initialized blocks in a pre-allocated range of blocks, wherein said block transfer includes a contiguous block allocation for said file,” as recited by independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 7, 13, and 19. Appeal 2010-009741 Application 11/670,539 6 SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED ke