Ex Parte Goldberg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

13535621 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/535,621 06/28/2012
73908 7590 09/21/2016
GRIFFITHS & SEATON PLLC (IBM)
3813 E. Kenwood St.
MESA, AZ 85215
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Itzhack GOLDBERG
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
SJ0920110066US2
(433.U02)
CONFIRMATION NO.
2915
EXAMINER
DOAN,HANV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2136
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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
Appeal2015-002989
Application 13/535,621
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and ROBERT E. NAPPI, and ELENI
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, and 3 through 9.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a data storage system in which an initial
remote region of a first remote storage device of a remote storage system not
matching a corresponding local region of a local storage device of a remote
local system is detected. Then, a subsequent remote region on the remote
storage system matching the initial remote region is identified and the data
in the initial region is replaced with data from the subsequent remote region.
See Specification, para. 5.
Appeal2015-002989
Application 13/535,621
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method performed by a processor, comprising:
detecting an initial remote region of a first remote storage
device of a remote storage system not matching a corresponding local
region of a local storage device of a local storage system, the remote
storage system including a plurality of remote storage devices each
including remote regions having a one-to-one correspondence with
local regions of the local storage device;
identifying a subsequent remote region included in one of the
remote storage devices of the plurality of remote storage devices of
the remote storage system matching the initial remote region by
searching a target subset of each of the remote regions; and
replacing data in the initial remote region with data from the
identified subsequent remote region.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujibayashi (US 2003/0131278), Natanzon
(US 8,108,634 Bl, issued Jan. 31, 2012) and Vaikar (US 8,055,614 Bl,
issued Nov. 8, 2011). Final Act. 2---6. 1
The Examiner has rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fujibayashi, Natanzon, Vaikar and Reynolds (US
2008/0021936 Al, pub. Jan. 24, 2008). Final Act. 6-7.
The Examiner has rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fujibayashi, Natanzon, Vaikar and Yamagami (US
2003/0126107 Al, pub. July 3, 2003). Final Act. 7.
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed July 30, 2014,
the Final Rejection, mailed March 10, 2014, and the Examiner's Answer,
mailed Nov. 5, 2014.
2
Appeal2015-002989
Application 13/535,621
ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 12 through 15 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 is in error: These arguments
present us with the following issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of the
Fujibayashi, Natanzon, and Vaikar references teaches identifying
subsequent remote regions included in one of the remote storage
devices of the plurality of remote storage devices of the remote
storage system matching the initial remote region by searching the
target subset of each of the remote regions and replacing data in
the initial remote region with data from the identified subsequent
remote region?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner's response to Appellant's arguments. The Examiner provides a
comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments on pages 3 through 9 of
the Answer. We have reviewed the Examiner's claim interpretation and the
cited portions of the references relied upon by the Examiner to support the
finding that Vaikar in combination with Fujibayashi and Natanzon teaches
the disputed claim limitation. We concur with the Examiner's claim
interpretation and findings and adopt them as our own. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 3
through 5, 8 and 9 which are grouped with claim 1.
3
Appeal2015-002989
Application 13/535,621
On pages 15 and 18 of the Appeal Brief~ Appellant addresses the
rejection of claims 6 and 7, by arguing that the additional references used in
the rejection don't make up for the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1.
As discussed above we are not persuaded of error in the rejections of claims
6 and 7 and we sustain the rejection of these claims.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, and 3 through 9 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
4