Ex Parte Grube et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 25, 2019

13527811 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/527,811 06/20/2012 Gary W. Grube
89322 7590 01/29/2019
Garlick & Markison (IBM)
106 E. 6th Street, Suite 900
Austin, TX 78701
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
CS00866/END920165901 US6 4257
EXAMINER
JENKINS, BENJAMIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2019 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):
MMURDOCK@TEXASPATENTS.COM
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARY W. GRUBE, S. CHRISTOPHER GLADWIN,
and
TIMOTHY W. MARKISON 1
Appeal2017-010379
Application 13/527,811
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JASON V. MORGAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants list IBM as the real party in interest.
Appeal2017-010379
Application 13/527,811
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "data storage solutions within"
computing systems. (Spec. 1 :20-21 ).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method comprises:
determining, for multi-media content that has not been
released, access priority to the multimedia content for a user
device, wherein the multi-media content is dispersed storage
error encoded to generate a plurality of encoded data slices for
transfer and storage, and wherein a threshold number of
encoded data slices of the plurality of encoded data slices are
needed to reconstruct the multi-media content, in which the
threshold number of encoded data slices being less than the
plurality of encoded data slices generated;
selecting one of a plurality of pre-release data
distribution schemes based on the access priority to distribute a
pre-release sub-set of the encoded data slices;
selecting one of a plurality of post-release data
distribution schemes based on the access priority to distribute a
post-release sub-set of the encoded data slices;
distributing two or more encoded data slices, but less
than the threshold number of encoded data slices, as the pre-
release sub-set, in accordance with the pre-release data
distribution scheme prior to release of the multi-media content;
and
distributing one or more encoded data slices as the post-
release sub-set, in accordance with the post-release data
distribution scheme subsequent to the release of the multi-
media content, in which a combination of the pre-release sub-
set and the post-release sub-set of the encoded data slices meet
at least the threshold number of encoded data slices to
reconstruct the multi-media content.
2
Appeal2017-010379
Application 13/527,811
REJECTIONS and REFERENCES
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) based upon the teachings of Ganesan (US 2006/0218220 Al,
published Sept. 28, 2006), Marvit (US 2008/0065771, issued Mar. 13,
2008), and Michael 0. Rabin, Efficient Dispersal of Information for
Security, Load Balancing, and Fault Tolerance, J. of the Ass'n for
Computing Machinery, 36(2) (1989) (hereinafter "Rabin").
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
based upon the teachings of Ganesan, Marvit, Rabin, and Dieumegard (US
2011/0150412 Al, published June 23, 2011).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in finding: a) Rabin teaches and
suggests "a threshold number of encoded data slices of the plurality of
encoded data slices are needed to reconstruct the multi-media content, in
which the threshold number of encoded data slices being less than the
plurality of encoded data slices generated" (Final Act. 1 7); and b) Ganesan
and Marvit teach and suggest the remaining limitations recited in claim 1
(Final Act. 12-18). App. Br. 6-13. Particularly, Appellants contend Rabin
teaches "every m pieces [ of the slicing algorithm] suffice for reconstructing"
(underline omitted). App. Br. 10. Further, Ganesan explicitly teaches "there
must be at least one copy of all corresponding segments in the network"
(App. Br. 11, citing Ganesan's ,r 124) and Marvit has a similar scope in that
"Marvit appears to require that each uploader must collect missing content
portions to play the complete content." App. Br. 13. Therefore, Appellants
contend, collecting "anything less than a complete set of data segments for
3
Appeal2017-010379
Application 13/527,811
content playback in Ganesan and Marvit would render the rejection
references, being modified by Rabin ( only a subset of data dispersed),
inoperative and therefore it would not have been obvious to have combined
these references." Id. 13.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Rabin discloses a threshold
number of encoded data slices being less than the plurality of encoded data
slices generated. Ans. 4; Final Act. 3. Additionally, we agree "Ganesan
does not teach that it is necessarily inoperative when it does not have 'all
segments'" as Appellants' invention is also unable to reconstruct an output
when below a threshold number similar to Ganesan and Marvit. Final. Act.
3, 12, 17; see also Ans. 4--5 (Ganesan's paragraph 96 teaches "not all
segments for a title must be fetched to play back the title").
We also agree Appellants are arguing the references separately and
not as a combination. See Ans. 4. Appellants' arguments do not take into
account what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the
Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. The test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art ( emphasis added). In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner has made reasonable findings with a rational
underpinning for combining Ganesan and Marvit with Rabin. Appellants
have provided no persuasive evidence that the references would become
4
Appeal2017-010379
Application 13/527,811
inoperable if combined or that the references criticize or discourage the
proposed combination. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that employing Rabin's encoding scheme
into Gavin's and Marvit' s systems for distributing/reconstructing encoded
multi-media data content would have been an obvious design choice to a
skilled artisan at the time of Appellants' invention.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims
1 and 8, and dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14, not separately argued. App.
Br. 14.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14 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
5