13916935 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2017)

Ex Parte Brion

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 2017

13916935 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 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. 13/916,935 06/13/2013 Ronald Richard Brion JR. 32888-00001 8418 76656 7590 Patent Docket Department Armstrong Teasdale LLP 7700 Forsyth Boulevard Suite 1800 St. Louis, MO 63105 09/28/2017 EXAMINER GEBRESENBET, DINKU W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/28/2017 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): USpatents @ armstrongteasdale. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RONALD RICHARD BRION, JR. Appeal 2017-005410 Application 13/916,9351 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellant’s invention is a method for managing a journaling-capable file system. A set of meta commands and a set of standard journaling commands are stored in memory. Each meta command corresponds to at least one of the standard journaling commands. The method includes receiving a first meta command, converting said meta command to a first 1 The real party in interest is ISeries Solutions, LLC. Appeal 2017-005410 Application 13/916,935 plurality of standard journaling commands, and executing said first plurality of standard journaling commands to perform at least one operation on the journaling-capable file system. Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal: 1. A method for managing a journaling-capable file system, the method being implemented by a computing device including a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory includes a set of meta commands, a set of standard journaling commands, and a journaling-capable file system that is responsive to the set of standard journaling commands, wherein each meta command corresponds to at least one of the standard journaling commands, said method comprising: receiving, by the computing device, a first meta command, wherein the first meta command corresponds to a first plurality of the standard journaling commands; converting, by the computing device, the first meta command to the first plurality of standard journaling commands using an internal mapping schema, wherein the internal mapping schema maps at least one relationship between the first meta command and the first plurality of standard journaling commands, and wherein the first meta command pertains to at least one of a journal and a journal receiver; and executing the first plurality of standard journaling commands on at least one of the journal and the journal receiver to perform at least one operation on the journaling-capable file system. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: McGowan et al. US 2012/0072465 A1 Leithead US 2012/0304303 Al Shah et al. US 8,892,503 B1 Mar. 22, 2012 Nov. 29, 2012 Nov. 18,2014 2 Appeal 2017-005410 Application 13/916,935 Claims 1—5, 8—12, and 15—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shah and McGowan. Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shah, McGowan, and Leithead. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed August 15, 2016), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February 13, 2017), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 14, 2016) for their respective details. ISSUES 1. Does the combination of Shah and McGowan disclose or suggest converting a first meta command to a first plurality of standard journaling commands? 2. Does the combination of Shah and McGowan disclose or suggest converting commands using an internal mapping schema? ANALYSIS Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 Appellant argues that Shah “does not describe meta commands at all,” and teaches only display of journaling data, with no mention of the management of a journaling-capable file system. App. Br. 6. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in applying Shah. Appellant does not provide an exact definition for “meta command” in the Specification, but provide a number of examples. Journaling-capable file system meta command 310 may represent any meta command related to the management and querying of the journaling-capable file system including, without limitation, generating a journal receiver 219 (shown in 3 Appeal 2017-005410 Application 13/916,935 FIG. 2), deleting a journal receiver 219, querying a journal receiver 219, displaying an output based upon a journal receiver 219, swapping a journal receiver 219, editing a journal receiver 219, starting journaling, stopping journaling, generating a journal 217 (shown in FIG. 2), and deleting a journal 217. Spec. 143 (emphasis added). Appellant discloses that these journaling-capable file system meta commands “are generated by input from user 101 to a textual user- interface,” or in alternative embodiments, “generated by input from user 101 to any interface including a graphical user-interface.” Id. Appellant describes their internal mapping schema 322 as “represent[ing] the mapping between meta commands 324, such as journaling-capable file system meta command 310, and standard journaling commands 326. Standard journaling commands 326 represent commands which may be used to administer a journaling-capable file system.” Spec. 144. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Shah’s column 9 discloses meta commands, i.e., performing commands related to querying a journal receiver, which is noted supra as one of the exemplary commands in Appellant’s Specification. Final Act. 4—5; Shah 9:14—30; Shah 9:63—10:2. A user enters values for one or more journal receiver parameters into user interface 800, in order to extract data from the selected journal receiver. See Shah 9:6-30. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Shah teaches a relationship between a first meta command and a first plurality of standard journaling commands. The operations of Shah’s computing system “may include display of a select journal receiver screen . . . and enables user 4 Appeal 2017-005410 Application 13/916,935 selection of at least one of the multiple journal receivers .... In these examples, the operations may include determining, by the tool, one or more commands needed to retrieve journaling data from the selected journal receiver and controlling the journaling process to execute the one or more commands needed to retrieve journaling data from the selected journal receiver.” Shah 2:55—67; see Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner admits that Shah does not disclose mapping using an internal mapping schema, and relies upon McGowan to supply this missing teaching. Final Act. 5; McGowan 195. Appellant’s argument that McGowan does not teach converting a first meta command to a first plurality of standard journaling commands, and merely describes creating internal data objects using internal schema information, is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on Shah for the concept of converting a meta command to a first plurality of standard journaling commands. See App. Br. 7. We conclude, on this record, that the Examiner did not err in combining Shah and McGowan to obtain the invention under appeal. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1—5, 8—12, and 15—19. Claims 6,7,13,14, and 20 Appellant’s only argument concerning these claims is that Leithead fails to remedy the deficiencies of Shah and McGowan asserted to exist with respect to parent claims 1, 8, and 15. See App. Br. 8—9. As discussed supra, however, we do not agree that such deficiencies exist. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 over Shah, McGowan, and Leithead, for the same reasons expressed with respect to the rejection of claim 1 supra. 5 Appeal 2017-005410 Application 13/916,935 CONCLUSIONS 1. The combination of Shah and McGowan teaches or suggests converting a first meta command to a first plurality of standard journaling commands. 2. The combination of Shah and McGowan teaches or suggests converting commands using an internal mapping schema. ORDER The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 6