Ex Parte Chen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2016

13173862 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 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.
13/173,862 06/30/2011 Lily Ya Liu Chen 82672067 9875
56436 7590 12/27/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
LE, THU NGUYET T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LILY YA LIU CHEN
Appeal 2016-002853
Application 13/173,8621
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies as the real party in interest Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP, a wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard
Company, and having HPQ Holdings, LLC, as its general or managing
partner. App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, filed June 25, 2015
(“App. Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief, filed January 19, 2016 (“Reply Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer, mailed November 18, 2015 (“Ans.”); Final Office
Action, mailed January 26, 2015 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification,
filed June 30, 2011 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2016-002853
Application 13/173,862
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1,10, and 15 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A method comprising:
processing data in a first computer system to archive the
data for a plurality of environments, each of the environments
being associated with a different combination of an active data
source selected from a plurality of active data sources and an
archive target selected from a plurality of archive targets; and
capturing a partial snapshot of the archiving, the partial
snapshot being associated with one environment for the plurality
of environments such that the partial snapshot may be used to
replicate said archiving associated with the one environment on
another computer system.
Stickler
Burton et al.
Celli et al.
Anand et al.
References
US 2003/0088593 Al
US 2004/0260900 Al
US 2009/0158266 Al
US 2010/0306590 Al
May 8, 2003
Dec. 23, 2004
June 18, 2009
Dec. 2, 2010
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4—18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Anand, Stickler, and Burton. Final Act. 2—12.
Claims 3 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anand, Stickler, Burton, and Celli. Final Act. 12—13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 12—27; Reply Br. 1—5). We are not
2
Appeal 2016-002853
Application 13/173,862
persuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Insofar as they relate to issues raised
in this appeal, we adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings and we agree
with the Examiner’s conclusions. See Final Act. 2—14; Ans. 3—21. We
highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as
follows.
Independent Claims 1, 10, and 15
Appellant argues “Anand fails to disclose an operation, which one of
ordinary skill in the art would consider to be ‘archiving,’ albeit under a
different name.” App. Br. 13. According to Appellant, “Anand’s target
environment 114 is merely a replica of a source environment 130.” App.
Br. 14. These arguments are not persuasive of error. The Examiner explains
that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have knowledge that archive or
archiving is the collection of data/records/information that is stored in a
place/location/data store.” Ans. 3. Appellant does not proffer a definition of
“archive” or “archiving,” nor does Appellant persuasively argue error in the
Examiner’s interpretation of these terms. See Reply Br. 1 (acknowledging
Examiner’s construction and offering no other interpretation). Replicating
data from one place to another is within a broad but reasonable interpretation
of “archiving,” as set forth by the Examiner.
Appellant also argues “Anand fails to disclose archiving data for a
plurality of environments, where each of the environments is associated with
a different combination of an active source and an active target.” App.
Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 2. However, Appellant does not address the
Examiner’s findings, in which the Examiner relies on paragraphs 64 and 68
of Anand for teaching a plurality of environments and relies on Burton for
3
Appeal 2016-002853
Application 13/173,862
teaching an active data source and an archive target. See Final Act. 2—3
(citing Anand 64, 68; Burton, Abstract, 13, 32).
Appellant further argues:
It is entirely unclear how the copying (the alleged archiving) of
one or more files to form a snapshot discloses or renders obvious
both copying (the alleged archiving) and a partial snapshot of this
copying process. Anand’s snapshot is an end product of the file
copying process, not a snapshot of this copying process.
Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. As the Examiner
correctly finds, Anand describes that a snapshot for creating the target
environment “can be selected from the data store 124, and replicated to the
target machine.” Ans. 7 (citing Anand Tflf 58, 92, Fig. 13). Anand describes
that “[t]he source environment 130 may be accessed remotely at the source
machine or accessed via the snapshot of the source environment 130 stored
on the platform within the Data Store 124.” Anand 178. Therefore, the
snapshot in Anand is a copy of data, but contrary to Appellant’s assertion,
Anand also describes that the snapshot can be used as part of the process of
creating the target environment. See Anand 92, Fig. 13.
With respect to independent claim 10, Appellant additionally argues
that the cited combination “fails to disclose the claimed user interface to
select an archiving environment that is managed by an archive manager.”
App. Br. 16. Appellant notes the Examiner relies on paragraph 29 of Anand
and argues that this paragraph “fails to disclose or render obvious a manager,
managing archives or an archive manager.” App. Br. 16. However,
Appellant does not address other disclosure relied upon by the Examiner to
teach the claimed user interface, including Figures 10A and 10B of Anand.
See Final Act. 6. In the Answer, the Examiner finds “Figure 10B is the user
4
Appeal 2016-002853
Application 13/173,862
interface provided for user to select the source environment for replication.”
Ans. 9 (citing Anand 69).
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s conclusion that the
subject matter of independent claims 1,10, and 15 would have been obvious
based on the combination of Anand, Stickler, and Burton. As such, we
sustain the rejection of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 2 and 18
Claims 2 and 18 depend from claims 1 and 15, respectively, and recite
that “the partial snapshot is constructed to be installed in a partition in said
another computer system.” Appellant argues that the cited disclosure of
Anand does not “mention installing a snapshot of the files or any other data
in a partition of the target environment 114” and that “[a] text word search
of Anand fails to reveal any instance of the language ‘partition.’” App. Br.
18-19.
For the reasons explained by the Examiner, we are not persuaded of
error. See Ans. 11—12. In particular, Anand discloses that “the machine for
the target environment 114 can be selected” and that “the selected snapshot
can be replicated to the selected target machine” (192), and the Examiner
finds that “a selected machine of target environment” teaches “a partition in
another computer system” (Ans. 11). Appellant does not explain in its
briefing how the claimed “partition” differs from the disclosure of Anand, as
explained by the Examiner. We note Appellant’s Specification broadly
describes a “partition” as a “logical unit.” See Spec. 17 (“[A]n instance of
the archive manager 40 creates logical units, or partitions, called ‘archiving
environments’ . . . .”).
5
Appeal 2016-002853
Application 13/173,862
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
concluding the subject matter of claims 2 and 18 would have been obvious
over the combination of Anand, Stickler, and Burton.
Claims 4 and 20
Claims 4 and 20 depend from claims 1 and 15, respectively, and recite
that “the capturing comprises capturing configuration settings for the
archiving associated with said one environment.” Appellant contends
Anand does not teach “capturing configuration settings for the archiving.”
App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellant argues Anand’s
“configuration files are not configuration settings for Anand’s copying (the
alleged archiving).” Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded.
Appellant does not direct us to, nor do we find, a definition of
“configuration settings” in Appellant’s Specification. Anand describes that
“[t]he copied file system can include configuration files that are copied from
the source environment 130 to the target machine,” and it further describes:
The Environment Replicator 132 can then prompt the user for a
user for updated values of the key attributes that apply to the
target environment 114 to be created in step 906. In step 908,
the Environment Replicator 132 can receive from the user the
updated values of the key attributes. The Environment
Replicator can then update the configuration files with the
updated attribute values received from the user for the target
environment 114.
Anand 1 62 (cited at Ans. 12). Thus, Anand discloses that the replication
process involves capturing updates to the configuration files, and, therefore,
Anand teaches “capturing configuration settings for the archiving.”
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
concluding the subject matter of claims 4 and 20 would have been obvious
over the combination of Anand, Stickler, and Burton.
6
Appeal 2016-002853
Application 13/173,862
Claims 6 and 7
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites “creating a test environment
in a partition of said another computer system to evaluate said archiving
associated with the one environment.” Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and
recites “creating another test environment in another partition of said another
computer system to evaluate archiving associated with another environment
of said plurality of environments.”
With respect to claim 6, Appellant argues that the cited disclosure of
Anand does not “disclose[] or render[] obvious creating a test environment
in a partition of a computer system.” App. Br. 21. We are not persuaded.
Anand describes that “[a] target environment can be created for performing
testing.” Anand 131 (cited at Ans. 13—14). As with claim 2, the Examiner
relies on Anand’s disclosure that “the machine for the target environment
114 can be selected” and that “the selected snapshot can be replicated to the
selected target machine” (192), and the Examiner finds that “a selected
machine of target environment” teaches “a partition in another computer
system” (Ans. 14).
Appellant further argues “the test environment in Anand is used for
purposes of conducting tests on the source environment, not testing
archiving or testing the copying of files.” Reply Br. 4. We are not
persuaded of error. Anand describes that “[a] target environment separate
from the source environment allows testing to take place without any
negative effects on the source environment.” Anand 131 (cited at Ans. 13—
14). Thus, Anand describes that the test environment in the target
environment evaluates data that is archived, rather than the actual source
data.
7
Appeal 2016-002853
Application 13/173,862
We further note that independent claim 1 does not affirmatively recite
a step of “archiving.” Rather, claim 1 recites “processing data ... to archive
the data” and then “capturing a partial snapshot of the archiving.”
With respect to claim 7, Appellant argues “the skilled artisan reading
Anand would not glean creating another test environment in another
partition . . . , much less creating a test environment in partition, in general.”
App. Br. 22. We are not persuaded because, as the Examiner correctly finds,
Anand teaches testing of multiple software applications. Ans. 14—15 (citing
Anand 14 (“Embodiments address issues such as these and others by
providing for the automation of the backend testing of software
applications.”)).
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
concluding the subject matter of claims 6 and 7 would have been obvious
over the combination of Anand, Stickler, and Burton.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and recites “the archive manager is
adapted to archive the data based on business flows and models that define
rules for selecting data to be archived.” The Examiner finds Anand
describes that the system determines which files to copy and copies only the
necessary files. Ans. 19—20 (citing Anand 58, 59, 92). Anand discloses
that “[t]he Environment Replicator 132 can accomplish this by copying only
the files required by the software application and by performing
parameterization of configuration files pertaining to the source environment
130.” Anand 1 58. Appellant argues “the mere disclosure of a ‘rule’ fails to
disclose archiving data based on a business flow, archiving data based on a
8
Appeal 2016-002853
Application 13/173,862
model, or archiving based on business flows and models that define such
rules for selecting data to be archived.” Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded. Appellant’s Specification describes “business
flows” and “models” in the following passage:
To govern the archiving, the archive manager 40 relies on
models, which define rules that govern the choice of data for
inclusion in the archived data and business flows 24 that are a
series of activities, such as archive operations and scripts, which
run in a sequence for purposes of transitioning data between the
active data databases 120 and the archive data databases 150.
Spec. 1 6. Thus, a “model” is described as “defm[ing] rules that govern the
choice of data,” and a “business flow” is described as “a series of activities,
such as archive operations and scripts.” Id. Anand’s disclosure of the
operation to select necessary files for copying, as described by the Examiner,
falls within the meaning of “business flows and models” as informed by
Appellant’s Specification. See Anand 58, 59; Ans. 19—20.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us the Examiner erred in
concluding the subject matter of claim 16 would have been obvious over
Anand, Stickler, and Burton.
Claims 5, 11—13, and 17
Appellant’s arguments with respect to dependent claims 5, 11—13, and
17 do little more than quote the limitations of the claims, identify relied-
upon portions of the references, and generally allege that a claim limitation
is not taught in the reference relied upon. See App. Br. 20-21 and 23—27.
To show error in the Examiner’s position, Appellant must explain why the
relied-upon disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed feature under its
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, rather than
merely allege that the feature is not shown or is different because it is
9
Appeal 2016-002853
Application 13/173,862
described in different terms. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin,
652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
We have considered these arguments, and we find them unpersuasive
of Examiner error. See App. Br. 20—21 and 23—27; see also Ans. 15—20. As
such, we sustain the rejections of dependent claims 5, 11—13, and 17.
Furthermore, with respect to claim 5, Appellant argues “Burton fails
to even mention archiving or capturing a snapshot of archiving.” App. Br.
21; see also App. Br. 24 (addressing claim 12 and arguing “Burton fails to
mention archiving . . . .”). Burton, which is entitled “Systems and Methods
of Data Migration in Snapshot Operations,” states that “[a] data storage
system may employ snapshots (i.e., an image of data at an instant of time)
for a variety of operations including backup, data mining, or testing of
software programs.” Burton 13. Therefore, contrary to Appellant’s
assertion, Burton is explicitly directed to backup operations, i.e., archiving,
and also to creating snapshots of data.
Claims 3, 8, 9, 14, and 19
Appellant does not offer additional arguments with respect to claims
3, 8, 9, and 19, and, therefore, we sustain the rejections of these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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