Ex Parte Bradshaw et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 14, 201712242811 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/242,811 09/30/2008 Peter Bradshaw 060963-5370US 9241 82750 7590 11/16/2017 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP / Google 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124 EXAMINER KUDDUS, DANIEL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2154 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/16/2017 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): padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com vskliba @ morganlewis. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PETER BRADSHAW and RYAN TYLER CAIRNS Appeal 2015-007419 Application 12/242,8111 Technology Center 2100 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of claims 1, 4—14, 16—20, and 22—25, all of the pending claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. BACKGROUND The disclosed invention relates to computer file management, particularly managing file metadata. Spec. 13, Abstract. 1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Google Inc. App. Br. 4. 2 Claims 2, 3, 15, and 21 have been cancelled. Appeal 2015-007419 Application 12/242,811 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitations in italics)'. 1. A computer-implemented method of downloading file content on demand, performed by a client device having one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs for execution by the one or more processors, the method comprising: at the client device: storing in a client metadata database, metadata for a set of files in a file system; storing in a client content database, a subset of content for the set of files for which metadata is stored in the client metadata database, wherein the subset of content does not exceed a cache size that is less than a full size of the content in the set of the files, and wherein the metadata in the client metadata database and the content in the client content database correspond to a virtual drive at the client device; in response to a request, retrieving from a server content database and storing in the client content database, at least a portion of content not in the subset of content, wherein the server content database is on a server located remotely from the client device; and performing a synchronization operation between the server and the client device wherein, upon completion of the synchronization operation, content stored in the client content database is a subset of a full set of content for the set offlies and, upon completion of the synchronization operation, metadata stored in the client metadata database includes a full set of metadata for the set offlies, wherein the subset of the full set of content does not exceed the cache size that is less than the full size of the content in the set of the files. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL AND APPLIED PRIOR ART Claims 1, 4—8, 14, 16—18, 20, and 22—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 2006/0004765 2 Appeal 2015-007419 Application 12/242,811 Al, published Jan. 5, 2006) (“Anderson”) and Zollinger et al. (US 5,999,947 A, issued Dec. 7, 1999) (“Zollinger”). Claims 9—13, 19, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anderson, Zollinger, and Hesselink et al. (US 2005/0114711 Al, issued May 26, 2005) (“Hesselink”). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s Answer, and arguments in the Reply Brief. Appellants’ arguments persuade us of Examiner error. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. The Examiner finds that Anderson teaches performing a synchronization operation between the server and the client device wherein,. . . content stored in the client content database is a subset of a full set of content for the set of files and . . . metadata stored in the client metadata database includes a full set of metadata for the set of files, wherein the subset of the full set of content does not exceed the cache size that is less than the full size of the content in the set of files, as recited in claim 1. See Non-Final Act. 9—10 (citing Anderson || 19, 26, 29, 31, 40, 41, 54, 59, 66, 68, 71, 7A-79, 82, 91, claims 1^1); Non-Final Act 3-5 (citing Anderson H 19, 26, 29, 31, 40, 41, 59, 66, 68, 71, 74, 79). The Examiner acknowledges that Anderson does not teach “wherein upon completion of the synchronization operation” and “upon completion of the synchronization operation,” as recited in claim 1. See Non-Final Act. 5, 11. The Examiner finds that Zollinger teaches these limitations. See Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Zollinger, col. 11,11. 1—13, col. 13,11. 36-49, Fig. 7), Non- Final Act. 11 (citing Zollinger, col. 3,11. 36—67, col. 5,11. 58—63, col. 6,11. 3 Appeal 2015-007419 Application 12/242,811 21-26, col. 6,1. 10-col. 7,1. 8, col. 7,11. 26-30, col. 8,11. 11-23, col. 9,11. 28-43, col. 13,11. 36-49, Figs. 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B). Appellants assert that the Examiner equates the claimed “full set of metadata” with Anderson’s disclosed “file system object metadata,” and equates the claimed “subset of the full set of content” with Anderson’s cache. See App. Br. 16 (citing Non-Final Act. 3^4; Anderson 141). Appellants argue that the Examiner erred because Anderson’s file system object metadata and Anderson’s cache are not located on the same client, as required by claim 1. See id. Appellants contend that Anderson’s metadata is not stored on the client, but is stored on SAN metadata server 100, while Anderson’s cache is stored on SAN disk 118. See id. at 16—18 (citing Anderson Figs. 1 and 3A, H 54, 57). Appellants argue that Anderson is silent on the issue of a client storing a subset of a full set of content that is less than a full size of the content files and storing, at the same point in time, a full set of metadata for the set of files. See id. at 18. Anderson’s Figure 1 is reproduced below: 4 Appeal 2015-007419 Application 12/242,811 Figure 1 illustrates a storage area network (SAN) client 102, SAN disk 118, SAN metadata server (MDS) 100 including client interface 104, remote container module 108, cache manager (CM) 112, replica manager (RM) 106, consistency maintenance framework (CMF) 116, distributed file manager (DFM) 114, and distributed storage tank (DST) 124 which includes remote access agent (RAA) 120, and remote source 122. See Anderson 11 54—55. We agree with Appellants that Anderson does not teach or suggest the file system object metadata and cache are located on the same client, as required by claim 1. Claim 1 recites: “at the client device: storing in a client metadata database, metadata for a set of files in a files system; storing in a client content database, a subset of content for the set of files for which metadata is stored in the client metadata database, . . . wherein . . . content stored in the client content database is a subset of a full set of content for the set of files, and . . . metadata stored in the client metadata database includes a full set of metadata for the set of files.” As pointed out by Appellants (see App. Br. 18), Anderson discloses that caches and replicas, collectively called local copies, of file system objects obtained from a plurality of remote sources 122 are written to and stored in SAN disk 118. See Anderson || 54, 57. Appellants also correctly point out that metadata is stored on metadata server (MDS) 100. See App. Br. 16; see also Anderson || 59, 67 (disclosing file system object attributes and directory mappings (i.e., meta-data) are stored in MDS 100 or remote container module of MDS 100). Anderson further discloses that SAN client 102 queries the MDS 100 to obtain metadata corresponding to a requested file system object, and SAN client 5 Appeal 2015-007419 Application 12/242,811 102 subsequently accesses SAN disk 118 to read the file system object. See Anderson H 41, 44, 66, 67. The Examiner does not explain sufficiently how Anderson’s disclosure of storing metadata on MDS 100, storing file system objects on SAN disk 118, and SAN client 102 utilizing the metadata stored on MDS 100 to access file system objects on SAN disk 118 teaches or suggest “at the client device: . . . content stored in the client content database is a subset of a full set of content for the set of files, and . . . metadata stored in the client metadata database includes a full set of metadata for the set of files.” The Examiner does not explain sufficiently how Anderson teaches or suggests that SAN disk 118 is a client content database, MDS 100 is a client metadata database, and that SAN disk 118 and MDS 100 are otherwise “at the client device.” See Non-Final Act. 3—5, 9—11; Ans. 3—9. The Examiner does not rely on Zollinger for teaching “at the client device: . . . content stored in the client content database is a subset of a full set of content for the set of files, and . . . metadata stored in the client metadata database includes a full set of metadata for the set of files.” See Non-Final Act. 5—6, 11. For these reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 4—8, dependent therefrom, as unpatentable over Anderson and Zollinger. The Examiner and Appellants agree that independent claims 14 and 20 recite limitations similar to claim 1. See Non- Final Act. 12—13; App. Br. 20. For the same reasons as claim 1, we also are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14 and 20, and claims 16— 18 and 22—24 dependent therefrom as unpatentable over Anderson and Zollinger. As applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Hesselink do not remedy the deficiencies of Anderson and Zollinger. See Non-Final Act. 16— 6 Appeal 2015-007419 Application 12/242,811 20. Accordingly, for the same reasons as claims 1, 14, and 20, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 9—13, 19, and 25 as unpatentable over Anderson, Zollinger, and Hesselink. DECISION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 4—14, 16—20, and 22—25. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation