Ex Parte GoldbergDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 201613355773 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 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. 13/355,773 01/23/2012 Itzhack GOLDBERG SJ0920110066US1 (0433) 6144 73908 7590 12/14/2016 GRIFFITHS & SEATON PLLC (IBM) 3813 E. Kenwood St. MESA, AZ 85215 EXAMINER DOAN, HAN V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2136 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/14/2016 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): docketing @ gs-iplaw .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ITZHACK GOLDBERG Appeal 2015-002830 Application 13/355,773 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2015-002830 Application 13/355,773 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 10—19 and 21—26, which are all the claims remaining in the application. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 10. An apparatus, comprising: a local storage system having a local processor and a local storage device with a plurality of local regions; and a remote storage system having a plurality of remote storage devices each with remote regions in a one-to-one correspondence with the local regions, and a remote processor configured to detect an initial remote region not matching a corresponding local region, to identify a subsequent remote region included in one of the remote storage devices of the plurality of remote storage devices matching the initial remote region by searching a target subset of each of the remote regions, and to replace data in the initial remote region with data from the identified subsequent remote region. Illustrative Claim Prior Art Yamagami Fujibayashi Hesselink Reynolds Vaikar US 2003/0126107 A1 US 2003/0131278 A1 US 2005/0149481 A1 US 2008/0021936 A1 US 8,055,614 B1 July 3, 2003 July 10, 2003 July 7, 2005 Jan. 24, 2008 Nov. 8,2011 Jan. 31,2012Natanzon US 8,108,634 B1 2 Appeal 2015-002830 Application 13/355,773 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 10-13, 16, 17, 19, 21—23, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujibayashi, Natanzon, and Vaikar. Claims 14 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujibayashi, Natanzon, Vaikar, and Reynolds. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujibayashi, Natanzon, Vaikar, and Yamagami. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujibayashi, Natanzon, Vaikar, and Hesselink. ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner’s findings made in the Final Action and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. Appellant contends “a remote processor configured ... to identity a subsequent remote region” as recited in claim 10 is not taught by Vaikar, because Vaikar teaches identifying locally available data files. Br. 14—15. Appellant’s contention is based on the premise that the locally available data files identified in Vaikar are not “a subsequent remote region” within the meaning of claim 10. However, the Examiner finds that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “remote” and “local” storage systems are storage systems remote relative to each other. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that the system of Vaikar shown in Figure 1 and discussed in Column 4 includes server 102 and client 104 where each is remote relative 3 Appeal 2015-002830 Application 13/355,773 to the other and local relative to itself. Ans. 5—7. Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding. Appellant further contends Vaikar does not teach “matching the initial remote region by searching a target subset of each of the remote regions1” as recited in claim 10. Br. 15—16. The Examiner finds that Vaikar teaches a data recovery module comparing a modification time of a file with a signature calculation time to determine whether the local file on client 104 is up to date. Ans. 8. If the file is up to date, the file is restored from the client device when the data recovery module finds a match in the locally available data files, which teaches “matching the initial remote region by searching a target subset of each of the remote regions.” Ans. 9. Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding. We sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 11—13, 16, 17, 19, 21—23, 25, and 26, which fall with claim 10. Appellant presents arguments for the patentability of claims 14, 15, 18, and 24 similar to those presented for claim 10 which we find unpersuasive. 1 Appellant finds support for “matching the initial remote region by searching a target subset of each of the remote regions” on Page 20, lines 6— 8 of Appellant’s Specification (Br. 6), which discloses “remote processor 66B searches memory 68B for a subsequent remote signature 72B that matches the retrieved local signature. ” In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether this claim limitation satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs. For example, if “an initial remote region [does not match] a corresponding local region” and “a subsequent remote region . . . match[es] the initial remote region,” then “replacing] data in the initial remote region with data from the identified subsequent remote region” as claimed makes little sense, because the end result is the same as before replacing data, namely, an initial remote region not matching the corresponding local region. 4 Appeal 2015-002830 Application 13/355,773 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 10—19 and 21—26 are 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation