Ex Parte Chron et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 26, 2011

11156842 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 26, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte EDWARD GUSTAV CHRON, FREDERICK DOUGLIS, and
STEPHEN PAUL MORGAN
____________

Appeal 2009-011722
Application 11/156,842
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention aggregates data for efficient bulk deletion based
on a determined “waterline” for a data container. See generally Abstract.
Appeal 2009-011722
Application 11/156,842

2
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for bulk deletion through segmented files,
the method comprising:
receiving a request for automatic deletion of segments in
a container;
determining a waterline for the container;
determining if at least one segment within a plurality of
segments in the container falls below the waterline; and
in response to the at least one segment falling below the
waterline, deleting the at least one segment from the container.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Anderson US 2006/0072400 A1 Apr. 6, 2006
(filed Sept. 17, 2004)

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Anderson. Ans. 3-8.1

CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Anderson
discloses every recited feature including automatically deleting a container
segment if it falls below a “waterline” (i.e., a delete threshold). Ans. 3-4, 9-
12. Appellants argue that Anderson does not receive a request to
automatically delete segments or determine a waterline, let alone delete
segments falling below the waterline as claimed. App. Br. 9-18; Reply Br.
2-4. The issue before us, then, is as follows:

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed July 24,
2008; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 20, 2008; and (3) the
Reply Brief filed December 22, 2008.
Appeal 2009-011722
Application 11/156,842

3

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Anderson (1) receives a request to automatically delete segments in a
container, and (2) deletes at least one segment falling below a determined
waterline for the container?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. “Periodically, a container system waterline is set . . . indicating the
minimum ‘value’ of objects that must be maintained within containers. An
object has a retention function and a creation time; along with the current
time, these allow the object’s value to be determined.” Spec. ¶ 0131.
2. Anderson optimizes a storage system to support short data object
(e.g., file) lifetimes by (1) indicating the data’s expected lifetime via a
retention value, relative priority, etc., and (2) clustering data objects with
similar expected lifetimes in common data structures for efficient deletion.
Anderson, Abstract; ¶ 0003.
3. When a data object 440 is created, it is given (1) a Current
Retention Value (CRV) indicating the relative importance of keeping the
data object, and (2) a function defining how the CRV changes over time
(e.g., decaying or increasing). Anderson, ¶ 0050; Fig. 4.
4. Data objects (or containers of data objects) with retention values
less than or equal to a high water mark or threshold are deleted from storage
system 430; otherwise, they are retained. Anderson, ¶¶ 0060, 0062, 0095-
96; Figs. 4, 11 (steps 1150-60).
Appeal 2009-011722
Application 11/156,842

4
5. The high water mark or threshold can vary as available storage
space varies. Anderson, ¶ 0060; Fig. 11 (steps 1110-30).
6. Data objects/containers are deleted without requiring explicit
deletion commands from applications. Anderson, ¶ 0063.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 1 essentially for the reasons
indicated by the Examiner. Ans. 9-12. First, we agree with the Examiner
that initiating Anderson’s deletion process would involve receiving some
sort of system request, particularly since Anderson indicates that deletion is
automatic. Ans. 9; FF 4-6. Appellants’ contention that Anderson monitors
or detects events and therefore does not receive a direct request (Reply Br.
2) is unavailing and, in any event, not commensurate with the scope of the
claim.
Second, we see no error in the Examiner’s mapping Anderson’s delete
threshold (high water mark) to the recited container “waterline” since the
recited waterline is essentially a threshold that is used as a basis for
comparing segments to determine whether to delete them. See FF 1. This
recited threshold-based comparison to delete selected segments is strikingly
similar (at least conceptually) to Anderson (see FF 2-4), and the Examiner’s
reliance on this functionality is therefore persuasive. Appellants’ arguments
regarding (1) the non-equivalence of creation date and life expectancy, and
(2) relative container priorities (App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 3-4) are
unavailing and, in any event do not squarely identify error in the Examiner’s
Appeal 2009-011722
Application 11/156,842

5
reliance on Anderson’s threshold-based deletion in Figure 11. Ans. 9-12; FF
4.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2-24 not separately argued with
particularity.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-24 under § 102.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-24 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

llw