Ex Parte Chhaunker et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 201613410840 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016) 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. 13/410,840 03/02/2012 Gaurav Chhaunker YOR920110791US1 1028 59144 7590 CAHN & SAMUELS, LLP 1100 17th STREET, NW SUITE 401 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 12/21/2016 EXAMINER FRUMKIN, JESSE P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2156 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2016 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 GAURAV CHHAUNKER, UMESH P. GAIKWAD, SANDEEP R. PATIL, and GANDHI SIVAKUMAR Appeal 2016-004401 Application 13/410,840 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, THU A. DANG, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1—3, 5—10, 12—18, and 20-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2016-004401 Application 13/410,840 ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites, among other things, the following: generating a storage quota for a user of the cloud computing system with a cloud quota management module, the storage quota being generated based on the storage properties of the storage components, and the geographic location of the user, the geographic location of the user including a city, state, and country where the user is located. App. Br. 23 (emphasis added). Independent claims 9, 16, and 24 recite similar limitations. Id. at 25, 26—27, 28—29. The Examiner rejected these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over various combinations of Prahlad,1 Bharali,2 Jacobson,3 and Guidotti4. As is relevant here, the Examiner found Prahlad teaches generating a storage quota based on a location—a user’s department. Final Act. 4—5. Relying on this finding, the Examiner concluded the “generating” limitation noted above would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Appellants acknowledge Prahlad discloses storage quotas but argue that Prahlad does not disclose what the storage quotas are based on. See App. Br. 7—8. Appellants contend none of the other references cited by the Examiner remedies this deficiency. See id. at 8—10. We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The portions of Prahlad cited by the Examiner disclose “[a] provisioning policy may specify, for example, data quotas for particular clients,” where clients may be “groups of clients, e.g., a group of clients associated with a department.” Prahlad 1 73. 1 Prahlad et al. (US 2010/0332401 Al; Dec. 30, 2010). 2 Bharali et al. (US 8,566,900 Bl; Oct. 22, 2013). 3 Jacobson et al. (US 2012/0110570 Al; May 3, 2012). 4 Guidotti et al. (US 2013/0019089 Al; Jan. 17, 2013). 2 Appeal 2016-004401 Application 13/410,840 Contrary to the Examiner’s finding, absent additional evidence or reasoning not present here, this disclosure does not teach or suggest basing a quota on a user’s location. Rather, as argued by Appellants, this disclosure simply teaches setting a quota for clients, not setting a quota for clients based on a characteristic such as the clients’ location. Because the Examiner has not established that any of the other cited references fill this gap,5 we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1,9, 16, and 24 and their respective dependent claims. DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 1—3, 5—10, 12—18, and 20-24. REVERSED 5 Although the Examiner referred to Batz (US 7,958,238 Bl) in the Final Rejection as “evidence” that “one skilled in the art would substitute geographic locations in contemplation of quotas,” the Examiner stated that Batz is merely “made of record and not relied upon.” Final Act. 3, 20—21. 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation