Ex Parte Chang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2016

13427958 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2016)

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.
13/427,958 03/23/2012 Hyunseok Chang 811549-US-NP 4974
76614 7590 12/19/2016
Terry W. Kramer, Esq.
Kramer & Amado, P.C.
330 John Carlyle Street
3rd Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
HUDA, MOHAMMED NURUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2016 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):
mail@krameramado.com
ipsnarocp @ alcatel-lucent, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HYUNSEOK CHANG, MURALIDHARAN S. KODIALAM,
TIRUNELL V. LAKSHMAN, SARIT MUKHERJEE, and LIMIN WANG
Appeal 2015-006209
Application 13/427,958
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1—16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is a distributed file system in a cloud network.
Specifically, a client’s file system is provisioned using a file placement
strategy based on the client’s access locations and maximum access
bandwidths. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An apparatus for providing a distributed file system, the apparatus
comprising:
Appeal 2015-006209
Application 13/427,958
a data storage; and
a processor communicatively connected to the data storage, the
processor being configured to:
determine a plurality of client locations associated with a client, a
plurality of files and communicatively connected to a plurality of edge nodes
within a storage network via a plurality of associated communication
channels, the plurality of files stored within a plurality of storage nodes
within the storage network;
determine a plurality of access bandwidths of the plurality of
associated communication channels; and
provision storage of the plurality of files within the storage nodes
based on the plurality of client locations and the plurality of access
bandwidths.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Knapp (US 2011/0276656 Al; Nov. 10, 2011), Chang
(US 2012/0066191 Al; Mar. 15, 2012), Coates (US 7,266,555 Bl; Sept. 4,
2007), and Taguchi (US 2005/0203910 Al; Sept. 15, 2005). Ans. 2-7.1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Knapp, Chang, Coates, and Taguchi. Ans. 7—13.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed January 7,
2015 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 14, 2015
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed June 10, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
2
Appeal 2015-006209
Application 13/427,958
The Examiner rejected claims 2—5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Knapp, Chang, Coates, Taguchi, and Srivas (US
2011/0313973 Al; Dec. 22,2011). Ans. 13-19.
The Examiner rejected claims 8—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Knapp, Chang, Coates, Taguchi, Srivas, and Thereska
(US 2011/0213994 Al; Sept. 1,2011). Ans. 19-22.
The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chang, Coates, and Taguchi. Ans. 22—30.
The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chang, Coates, Taguchi, and Srivas. Ans. 30-33.
THE REJECTION OVER KNAPP, CHANG, COATES, AND TAGUCHI
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Knapp
discloses an apparatus for providing a distributed file system with the recited
data storage and processor, and Chang determines plural client locations
associated with a client and plural files. Ans. 7—9. The Examiner also cites
Coates for teaching communicatively connecting plural client locations to
plural edge nodes within a storage network via associated communication
channels, and storing the files within plural storage nodes within the
network. Ans. 9. Lastly, the Examiner cites Taguchi for teaching
determining access bandwidths of the communication channels and
provisioning storage of the files within the storage nodes based on the client
locations and access bandwidths. Ans. 10. Based on these collective
teachings, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 would have been obvious.
Ans. 10-11.
3
Appeal 2015-006209
Application 13/427,958
Appellants argue that Taguchi does not provision storage of files
within a storage node based on client locations and access bandwidths, as
claimed. App. Br. 8—11; Reply Br. 4—13. According to Appellants,
Taguchi’s security policy is used permit access from ports, and the identified
bandwidth is used to select a port, but neither of these aspects are used to
create new volumes which is said to constitute the recited provisioning under
the Examiner’s construction. App. Br. 9—13; Reply Br. 10—11.
Appellants also argue that Chang does not determine client locations
associated with a client and plural files, but rather describes unassociated
users accessing unassociated data files. App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 14—15.
Appellants add that Taguchi does not determine access bandwidths of
associated communication channels as claimed because the identified server
storage port is not a channel between a client location and associated edge
node. App. Br. 14—16; Reply Br. 14—15.
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Knapp, Chang, Coates, and Taguchi collectively would have taught or
suggested (1) the recited storage provision; (2) determining client locations
associated with a client and files; and (3) determining access bandwidths of
associated communication channels?
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting, as do Appellants, claim 1 recites, in pertinent
part provisioning storage of files within storage nodes based on (1) plural
client locations associated with a client, and (2) access bandwidths of
4
Appeal 2015-006209
Application 13/427,958
associated communication channels. Our emphasis underscores two key
disputed aspects of this limitation, namely that file storage is provisioned,
and that the determined client locations are associated with a client, which
Appellants contend means one particular client. See Reply Br. 7 (arguing
that the term “client location” means plural locations associated with one
client); see also App. Br. 12 (citing Spec. 13:15—20 (noting that client
locations from which access requests will originate for files of a specified
client are determined)).
In the rejection, the Examiner finds that Chang determines plural
client locations associated with a client and plural files. Ans. 9 (citing
Chang 159; Fig. 5). Notably, the Examiner finds that Chang’s client nodes
A to N in Figure 5 are “obviously associated with a client, and that a
metadata server 502 allows for concurrent access of the files in the file
system.” Ans. 39 (emphasis added).
We see no error in this finding. Despite Appellants’ arguments to the
contrary (App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 14—15), nothing in the claim requires
plural client locations to be associated with one particular client. So even
assuming, without deciding, that different clients are associated with nodes
A to N in Chang’s Figure 5, nothing in the claim precludes determining
these node-based locations that are each associated with a client and files
under the Examiner’s position. To the extent that Appellants contend that
Chang’s client locations are not communicatively coupled to edge nodes via
associated communication channels as claimed (see App. Br. 12—13; Reply
Br. 14—15), such an argument does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
findings in this regard which are not based on Chang alone, but also Coates.
See Ans. 9 (citing Coates, col. 21,11. 25^44; Fig. 17).
5
Appeal 2015-006209
Application 13/427,958
Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s reliance on Taguchi for
teaching the reciting file storage provisioning step. Unlike at least one other
term,2 the term “provision” is not defined in Appellants’ Specification to so
limit its interpretation. To be sure, the Specification describes provisioning
with respect to a file placement strategy that, for example, can replicate files
into chunks, and determine which chunks are stored at which storage nodes
as Appellants indicate. See Reply Br. 5—6 (citing Spec. 14:3—21, 1:17—25;
7:12—18; 12:10—12). That the exemplary term “e.g.” is used in connection
with this chunk-based determination (Spec. 14:10) is telling in this regard.
In short, although this description informs our understanding of the recited
provisioning, it does not so limit its interpretation.
A noted electrical engineering dictionary defines the term
“provisioning” as follows:
The setting up of a communications network. This may include
the allocation of hardware, such as multiplexers and interface
units, the selection of the mediums of transmission, such as
coaxial cables and optical fibers, and establishing the
connection between nodes. Alternatively, it may involve
simply programming a computer to make the appropriate
arrangements within an established network.
Steven M. Kaplan, Wiley Electrical & Electronics Engineering
Dictionary 610 (2004).
Although this definition is in a networking context, it nonetheless
defines the term “provisioning” in terms of setting up a network.
Analogously, then, skilled artisans would understand that, under its plain
meaning, provisioning storage of files within storage nodes would involve at
2 See, e.g., Spec. 8:22—25 (defining the term “file”).
6
Appeal 2015-006209
Application 13/427,958
least setting up this storage—a preliminary process that is not limited to a
file placement strategy, let alone that such a strategy determines which file
chunks are stored at which storage nodes as Appellants contend (Reply Br.
5). That dependent claim 2 further narrows the recited file provisioning to
include file chunking and determining placement of file chunks within the
storage nodes only bolsters the notion that claim 1 is not so limited under
claim differentiation principles.3 Therefore, Appellants’ proffered
interpretation of “provision storage” that determines which file chunks are
stored at which storage nodes (Reply Br. 5) is more commensurate with the
scope of claim 2—not claim 1.
Turning to the rejection, the Examiner finds that Taguchi’s storage
agent that creates a new volume provisions storage. Ans. 10. But in the
Answer’s Response to Arguments, the Examiner finds that Taguchi’s
creating a new volume in step 1722 of Figure 17 starts the provisioning of
requested storage. Ans. 36. Our emphasis underscores that the Examiner
does not rely solely on creating a new volume for teaching the recited
provisioning, but only that this volume creation starts the provisioning
process. Notably, the Examiner also finds that the user is granted access to
the storage to complete the provisioning process via steps 1722 to 1726.
Ans. 36—37.
3 See Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The doctrine of claim differentiation creates a
presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope. The difference
in meaning and scope between claims is presumed to be significant to the
extent that the absence of such difference in meaning and scope would make
a claim superfluous.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
7
Appeal 2015-006209
Application 13/427,958
Therefore, to the extent that Appellants’ arguments are premised on
the notion that the Examiner relies solely on Taguchi’s creating a new
volume as constituting the recited provisioning (see App. Br. 8—11; Reply
Br. 4—13), such arguments are not germane to the Examiner’s position which
also relies on additional aspects of Taguchi’s storage configuration process
in Figure 17 in connection with the recited provisioning, namely those from
steps 1722 to 1726.
Given this interpretation, we see no error in the Examiner’s findings
that Taguchi’s storage provisioning process is based at least partly on (1)
client locations associated with a security policy that permits access only
from the host port WWN,4 and (2) bandwidth determinations that are used to
select a network port which at least suggests an associated communications
channel. See Ans. 10,40. Appellants’contention that both of these aspects
are not used as a basis for new volume creation and, therefore, provisioning
because these processes occur after storage has been provisioned (App. Br.
8—11; Reply Br. 10-12) are unavailing. Notably, these arguments do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s broader interpretation of the recited
provisioning which is not limited to creating a new volume, but includes
other aspects in Taguchi that would at least contribute to setting up (i.e.,
provisioning) the recited storage under the plain meaning of the term.
We also find unavailing Appellants’ contention that Taguchi does not
determine access bandwidths of associated communication channels as
claimed because the identified server storage port is not a channel between a
client location and associated edge node. App. Br. 14—16; Reply Br. 14—15.
4 “WWN” stands for world-wide name. Taguchi | 65.
8
Appeal 2015-006209
Application 13/427,958
Not only does this port at least suggest an associated communications
channel given the associated bandwidth determination involved in its
selection as noted above, but the Examiner’s rejection does not rely solely
on Taguchi with respect to the recited communications channels and
associated edge nodes, but also Coates. See Ans. 9. Therefore, such
individual attacks on Taguchi’s alleged shortcomings in this regard do not
show non-obviousness where, as here, the Examiner’s rejection relies on the
cited references’ collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We reach a similar conclusion regarding Appellants’ contention that
Taguchi’s host port WWN does not correspond to a recited client location
because it is not connected to an edge node as claimed. Reply Br. 7—8. Here
again, the Examiner does not rely solely on Taguchi for teaching the recited
client locations, but rather also Chang and Coates, the latter cited for
teaching connecting such locations to edge nodes. See Ans. 9. Therefore,
such individual attacks on Taguchi’s alleged shortcomings in this regard do
not show non-obviousness where, as here, the Examiner’s rejection relies on
the cited references’ collective teachings. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 6 and 7 not argued separately with particularity.
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2—5
and 8—16. Ans. 2—7, 13—33. Appellants reiterate arguments similar to those
made in connection with claim 1 that we find unpersuasive for the reasons
previously discussed. See App. Br. 12—17..
9
Appeal 2015-006209
Application 13/427,958
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—16 under § 103.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—16 is affirmed.
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
10