Ex Parte Carter

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2018

13483256 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/483,256 05/30/2012
67070 7590
Spectra Logic Corporation
6285 Lookout Road
Boulder, CO 80301
08/23/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joshua Daniel Carter
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SL081 USOl 8574
EXAMINER
BULLOCK, JOSHUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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 JOSHUA DANIEL CARTER
Appeal 2018-002616
Application 13/483,256 1
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-5, 8-13, and 21-29, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 6, 7, and
14--20 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Spectra Logic LLC.
See App. Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief filed June 26, 2017 ("App.
Br."); Appellant's Reply Brief filed January 8, 2018 ("Reply Br.");
Examiner's Answer mailed November 8, 2017 ("Ans."); Advisory Action
mailed October 21, 2016 ("Adv. Act."); and Final Office Action mailed
August 11, 2016 ("Final Act.").
Appeal 2018-002616
Application 13/483,256
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 8, and 29 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below.
1. An archive for a distributed storage system, comprising:
a first computer memory in an active data node structured
and arranged to store new active data with previously stored
active data;
a portable data storage device in an archive data node
structured and arranged to migrate a portion of active data from
the first computer memory in the active data node when a
predefined attribute indicates the portion of stored active data has
become new archive data, the archive data node structured and
arranged to store the new archive data to a second computer
memory in the portable data storage device having previously
stored archive data; and
a third computer memory in a name node structured and
arranged to map a correlation of logical address to physical
storage address for all of the active data that is physically stored
in the first computer memory in the active data node and all of
the archive data that was migrated from the first computer
memory and physically stored in the second computer memory
in the portable data storage device.
Reference
Mitra US 2012/0254257 Al Oct. 4, 2012
Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 21-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e)
as being anticipated by Mitra. Final Act. 4--11.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejection and the
issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) and 4I.39(a)(l).
2
Appeal 2018-002616
Application 13/483,256
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
"to map a correlation"
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Mitra discloses "a
third computer memory in a name node structured and arranged to map a
correlation of logical address to physical storage address," as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 3--4; Reply Br. 1-2. Specifically, Appellant argues the
Examiner "divorces the claim term map from a correlation of logical
address" and "ignores claim language of claim 1 by giving no weight to the
language a correlation of logical address to physical address." App. Br. 4.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Mitra's
"metadata information, which includes index information" (Final Act. 5
(citing Mitra ,r,r 31, 37, 42)), discloses stored data "to map a correlation of
logical address to physical storage address," i.e., a map of a correlation. In
particular, Mitra's "index ... associate[s]," i.e., correlates, "a file with data
segments and their locations in partition(s)." Mitra ,r 37. That correlation,
represented by the index, is stored in Mitra's "metadata information." Id.
,r 31 ("[ m ]etadata information ... includes index information ( e.g., location
information for segments in storage units)"); see id. ,r 29, 36, 42--43. Indeed,
Mitra's metadata map of the correlation between a file and the file's
segments (see Mitra ,r 31) describes the same type of mapping as the
Specification's "map 212 relating the files 214 under its responsibility to the
data blocks 216 comprising each file." Spec. ,r 48; see Fig. 2.
Furthermore, Appellant's argument that "the claimed embodiments
map the logical correlation across partitions" but Mitra does not "map[] two
different partitions together" (Reply Br. 2) is not commensurate with the
3
Appeal 2018-002616
Application 13/483,256
scope of the claim. Specifically, the claim does not recite mapping different
partitions together. Nor does the Specification define or even describe
mapping as between different partitions. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in finding Mitra describes "a third computer memory in
a name node structured and arranged to map a correlation of logical address
to physical storage address" within the scope of the claim.
"a third computer memory "
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Mitra discloses
a third computer memory ... to map ... all of the active data that
is physically stored in the first computer memory ... and all of
the archive data that was migrated from the first computer
memory and physically stored in the second computer memory,
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 2-3. Specifically, Appellant
argues "Mitra is silent regarding a map in one partition ( alleged third
computer memory) for all data in another partition ( alleged first computer
memory) and for all data in yet another partition ( alleged second computer
memory)." App. Br. 5. Additionally, Appellant argues "Mitra does not
disclose using the same partition for both active and archive data." Reply
Br. 3.
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Mitra's metadata information discloses a "map" that
correlates files to corresponding file segments for the active data and archive
data stored in Mitra's active and archive storage units, respectively. Final
Act. 4--5 ( citing Mitra ,r,r 26, 31, 37, 42). That metadata information is
stored in system memory 110, i.e., "a third computer memory." Mitra ,r 32
4
Appeal 2018-002616
Application 13/483,256
("metadata (e.g., metadata 112-113) is actually swapped into system
memory 11 O"), Fig. 1; see Fig. 3.
Appellant's arguments that Mitra's map is not in "one partition" (App.
Br. 4) and that Mitra does not store active data and archive data in the "same
partition" (Reply Br. 3) are not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
The claim recites the map is provided by "a third computer memory," not by
a single partition. And, the claim recites that the map is for active and
archive data but does not recite that the active and archive data are stored in
the same partition. Accordingly, Mitra's system memory 110, which stores
the metadata information for active data and archive data, describes "a third
computer memory ... to map ... all of the active data that is physically
stored in the first computer memory ... and all of the archive data that was
migrated from the first computer memory and physically stored in the
second computer memory."
Claims 8 and 2 9
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Mitra discloses
"stor[ing] the block-level data in the active computer memories as file-level
data in another computer memory in the portable data storage device," as
recited in claim 8 and similarly recited in claim 29. App. Br. 5---6; Reply
Br. 3. Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner "simply ignores
language of claims 8 and 29 that expressly features storing the data as block-
level data in the active computer memories and storing the data as file-level
data in the portable data storage device." App. Br. 5---6. Appellant further
argues that Mitra "is silent regarding ... stor[ing] the block-level data in the
5
Appeal 2018-002616
Application 13/483,256
active computer memories as file-level data in another computer memory."
Reply Br. 3 ( emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner's finding (Ans. 4;
see Final Act. 6-7) that the "data blocks," i.e., "structures used to store the
actual data for the file," stored in Mitra's active data storage (Mitra ,r 68; see
id. ,r 26) disclose "block-level data in the active computer memories." We
further agree with the Examiner's finding that Mitra's archive data storage,
where active data is transferred for archiving, stores data in "file system
partitions," i.e., as "file-level data." Ans. 4 (citing Mitra ,r 26); see Mitra
,r 42 ( discussing "files that are stored in the system with their file names").
Appellant's arguments merely recite claim language and contend,
without sufficient elaboration or explanation, that the Examiner has not
addressed that claim language or that Mitra does not disclose that claim
language. In particular, Appellant does not address the Examiner's finding
that Mitra's archive storage stores files from data blocks received from
active storage. Accordingly, Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence
or argument to persuade us the Examiner erred in finding Mitra describes
"stor[ing] the block-level data in the active computer memories as file-level
data in another computer memory in the portable data storage device," as
recited in claim 8 and similarly recited in claim 29.
Remaining claims 2-5. 9-13. and 21-28
Appellant does not argue separate patentability for dependent claims
2-5, 9-13, and 21-28, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1
6
Appeal 2018-002616
Application 13/483,256
and 8. See App. Br. 3---6. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we
sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims 2-5, 9-13, and 21-28.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 8-13, and
21-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Mitra
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7