Ex Parte Grube et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

12850606 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017)

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.
12/850,606 08/04/2010 GARY W. GRUBE CS00187 1165
89322 7590 02/23/2017
Garlick & Markison (IBM)
106 E. 6th Street, Suite 900
Austin, TX 78701
EXAMINER
GUYTON, PHILIP A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2113
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2017 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
ghmptocor@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 and TIMOTHY W. MARKISON
Appeal 2015-007136
Application 12/850,6061
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—6 and 11—16,2 which are all the
claims pending in the present application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Cleversafe, Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
2 Claims 7—10 and 17—20 are cancelled. Br. 15, 17.
Appeal 2015-007136
Application 12/850,6060F
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to data storage solutions. Spec. 1:15.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized and bracketed material added.
1. A method for execution by a processing module of
a computing device, the method comprises:
generating data for storage;
soliciting dispersed storage (DS) units to store
encoded data slices of the data;
receiving favorable responses from at least some of
DS units;
[LI] selecting DS units from the at least some of the
DS units providing a favorable response to produce a set
of selected DS units;
[L2] determining an error coding dispersal storage
function for the set of selected DS units;
encoding a data segment of the data in accordance
with the error coding dispersal storage function to produce
a plurality of encoded data slices; and
outputting the plurality of encoded data slices to the
set of selected DS units for storage therein.
The Rejections
Claims 1—5 and 11—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Ejiri et al. (US 2006/0036820 Al; Feb. 16, 2006) and Gladwin et al. (US
2007/0079083 Al; Apr. 5, 2007).
Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ejiri,
Gladwin, and De La Torre et al. (US 7,636,724; Dec. 22, 2009).
2
Appeal 2015-007136
Application 12/850,6060F
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1—5 and 11—15 together. Br.
9—11. Based on Appellants’ arguments, we decide the appeal on the basis of
representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because the
combined “teachings of Ejiri with Gladwin fails to teach or suggest”
limitations LI andL2. Br. 10. We are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments for at least the following reasons.
With respect to limitation LI, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Ejiri
teaches or suggests this limitation. Final Act. 3 (citing Ejiri || 65-66, 73,
and 82). Appellants contend:
Ejiri is teaching a storage system in which an
initiator is acting on behalf of a host to store the
host's data in one or more target storage units. Ejiri
does not teach or suggest encoding the data or
selecting an encoding scheme based on the number
of storage units that respond to the request
Br. 9-10. We are not persuaded by this argument because it fails to respond
to the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner finds “Gladwin teaches encoding
the data,” not Ejiri. Ans. 4; Final Act. 3^4.
Similarly, Appellants’ arguments do not respond to the Examiner’s
findings regarding limitation L2. The Examiner combines the teachings of
Ejiri and Gladwin and articulates a reason to so combine. Final Act. 3^4.
Appellants’ argument that “Gladwin does not teach or suggest determining
the encoding scheme for encoding data in accordance with the favorable
responses from storage units” is incorrect because the Examiner relies on
Ejiri, not Gladwin, as teaching or suggesting “act[ing] in response to
3
Appeal 2015-007136
Application 12/850,6060F
favorable responses from the storage units.” Ans. 4; Final Act. 3^4. Where,
as here, a rejection is based on a combination of references, one cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
Appellants’ argument related to limitation L2 is also unpersuasive
because it is not commensurate with the claim language. As the Examiner
correctly states, the set of selected DS units recited in limitation L2 and
selected in limitation LI is not necessarily coextensive with the set of DS
units providing a favorable response, as recited in limitation LI. Ans. 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5 and
11—15 as rendered obvious. Appellants advance no further arguments
regarding claims 6 and 16. Br. 12. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 6 and 16 as rendered obvious.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1—6 and 11—16.
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